850 N.W.2d 896
Wis.2014Background
- Elm Grove sent notice of its Memorial Day parade to rail police; Soo Line issued a TGBO instructing crews to "sound engine bell continuously and lookout for crowds" during the parade period but did not issue a slow order.
- On parade day a minivan became stuck/straddled the tracks at the Juneau Boulevard crossing; police and a bystander were extracting the child when an approaching Soo Line freight struck the van, injuring two men; the train was under federal speed limits and sounded its bell as ordered.
- Plaintiffs (Partenfelder and the Krahns) sued Soo Line and Rohde for negligence, alleging the railroad should have slowed trains because the parade-created traffic was a "specific, individual hazard."
- Circuit court denied defendants' summary judgment motions in part, dismissed Rohde, and excluded evidence of prior notice and failure to issue a slow order for pre-visibility acts; court of appeals held the parade was a specific, individual hazard and reversed in part.
- Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the parade/traffic falls within the FRSA "specific, individual hazard" exception to federal preemption of state-law speed-related claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parade-related increased traffic is a "specific, individual hazard" that avoids FRSA preemption | Parade traffic was a unique, once-a-year event creating a specific, imminent hazard that Soo Line knew about and could have addressed by slowing trains | The parade produced only a general traffic condition; FRSA (and implementing regs) preempt state claims about train speed except for truly particular, imminent hazards | Not a specific, individual hazard; parade/traffic was a generally dangerous condition and preempted before the van itself became visible |
| Whether the van on the tracks constituted a non-preempted hazard | N/A (plaintiffs rely on van as basis for negligence) | Soo Line conceded the vehicle on tracks was a specific hazard | Van on the tracks is a specific, individual hazard; claims about crew response after seeing the van survive summary judgment |
| Admissibility of evidence about Soo Line's notice, failure to issue slow order, and pre-visibility braking | Such evidence shows knowledge and was relevant to duty to slow for the parade hazard | Such evidence concerns actions governed by federal safety standards and is preempted when tied to general speed regulation | Excluded insofar as it concerns pre-visibility acts tied to the parade; re-open on crew response after van became visible |
| Liability of private rail police officer Rohde for pre-visibility acts | Rohde relayed notice and can be liable for failing to secure a slow order/lookout | Imposing liability on Rohde would circumvent FRSA preemption by creating duties pre-visibility | Dismissed Rohde to avoid imposing duties pre-visibility that would conflict with FRSA preemption |
Key Cases Cited
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993) (FRSA preempts state excessive-speed claims but may not preclude claims for failure to slow/stop for a "specific, individual hazard")
- Anderson v. Wis. Cent. Transp. Co., 327 F. Supp. 2d 969 (E.D. Wis. 2004) (defining a specific, individual hazard as a unique, imminent danger not addressable by uniform national standards)
- Hightower v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 70 P.3d 835 (Okla. 2003) (narrow construction of the specific, individual hazard exception; imminence requirement)
- Myers v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 52 P.3d 1014 (Okla. 2002) (factors distinguishing general traffic/conditions from specific, transient hazards)