Roth v. NORFALCO LLC
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13119
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Roth sued Norfalco for personal injuries after a sulfuric acid tank car accident during unloading; the car trapped Roth behind an acid spray.
- Norfalco transported sulfuric acid in model 111AW non-pressure tank cars and fully complied with the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR).
- Roth claimed Norfalco’s tank cars lacked safety valves and pressure gauges and that Norfalco warranted a safer design.
- The district court granted summary judgment, holding Roth’s common law claims preempted by HMTA; it also rejected Roth’s strict liability claim as non-abnormal.
- The HMTA provides express preemption for state laws that regulate design, packaging, labeling, and related aspects of hazardous materials transport.
- Roth appealed, arguing HMTA preemption does not apply or that his unloading scenario falls outside the HMTA framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does HMTA § 5125(b)(1) preempt Roth's common law claims? | Roth argues common law design duties are non-federal requirements. | Norfalco argues HMTA preempts any state/common-law design requirements for packaging. | Yes; Roth's common law design claims are expressly preempted. |
| Does § 5125(b)(1) apply to Roth's tank car design claim (package/design). | Roth's claims target car design as a packaging component. | Design of packaging is within HMTA's exclusive domain and preempted. | Yes; design of a packaging component is within § 5125(b)(1)(E) and preempted. |
| Are Roth's claims 'substantively the same as' federal requirements if considered under HMR? | State design standards could be distinct from federal ones. | HMR governs design; non-federal requirements are not substantively the same. | No; Roth's proposed design requirements differ from HMR and are not substantively the same. |
| Is Roth's unloading scenario within HMTA's 'unloading incidental to movement' scope? | Unloading by a consignee after carrier delivery should be outside HMTA. | Unloading remains part of the regulated transportation framework; HMTA applies. | Preemption applies regardless of timing of unloading; HMTA governs the container design. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Twp. of Lacey, 772 F.2d 1103 (3d Cir.1985) (regulatory fragmentation and HMTA context guiding preemption)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1993) (framework for preemption analysis under HMTA)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1996) (purpose and scope of preemption; text as primary guide)
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (U.S. 2008) (state requirements include common-law duties under preemption)
- Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 529 U.S. 861 (U.S. 2000) (savings clause in preemption analysis)
- Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc., 561 F.3d 233 (3d Cir.2009) (structure/purpose of statute to bolster preemption conclusion)
- Kurns v. A.W. Chesterton Inc., 620 F.3d 392 (3d Cir.2010) (uniformity goals and preemption of railroad equipment design)