432 P.3d 77
Kan. Ct. App.2018Background
- BNSF freight train allegedly blocked two adjacent grade crossings in Chase County, Kansas, on December 19, 2016; sheriff reported crossings blocked from shortly after 6:00 a.m. until 9:54 a.m. and issued a citation under K.S.A. 66-273.
- K.S.A. 66-273 prohibits a railroad from allowing trains, engines, or cars to stand on a public road or crossing more than 10 minutes without leaving a 30-foot opening; K.S.A. 66-274 makes violations misdemeanors.
- At bench trial the district court found BNSF guilty and fined it $4,200; BNSF appealed raising federal preemption and sufficiency-of-evidence defenses.
- BNSF argued ICCTA and FRSA preempt the Kansas antiblocking statute; the State defended the statute as a traditional police-power safety regulation of general applicability.
- The court reviewed ICCTA’s grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the Surface Transportation Board over rail transportation and the statutory preemption clause and examined federal and state precedent addressing antiblocking statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICCTA preempts K.S.A. 66-273 | K.S.A. 66-273 is a valid exercise of Kansas police power to protect public safety and is not preempted | ICCTA (and STB jurisdiction) preempt state laws that regulate rail operations, including antiblocking rules | ICCTA preempts K.S.A. 66-273; conviction reversed as a matter of law |
| Whether FRSA preempts K.S.A. 66-273 | (State) FRSA does not displace the State's safety regulation | (BNSF) FRSA also displaces state regulation of rail operations | Court did not decide FRSA preemption because ICCTA preemption resolved the case |
| Sufficiency of evidence to identify violating engines | State: testimony and local observations sufficiently identified BNSF train blocking crossings | BNSF: event recorder showed different timing/location; identification and proof were insufficient | Court declined to reach sufficiency claim after resolving preemption issue |
| Whether antiblocking statute targets rail carriers or is generally applicable | State: statute addresses public-safety concern and is settled historic law | BNSF: statute specifically targets rail operations and affects train scheduling, length, and other operational choices | Court: statute targets rail carriers and has more than incidental effect on rail transportation; thus preempted by ICCTA |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Miami County Comm'rs v. Kanza Rail-Trails Conservancy, Inc., 292 Kan. 285 (Kan. 2011) (describing preemption principles and federal presence in railroad regulation)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1996) (framework for analyzing congressional intent on preemption)
- Friberg v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 267 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2001) (ICCTA preempted Texas antiblocking law; regulating blocking time affects operations)
- Elam v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 635 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2011) (antiblocking statutes directly manage railroad switching and operations and are preempted)
- Wichita Terminal Ass'n v. F.Y.G. Investments, Inc., 48 Kan. App. 2d 1071 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013) (ICCTA preempts state/local regulation that manages or governs rail transportation)
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. City of Alexandria, 608 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2010) (state/local actions denying a railroad ability to conduct operations are preempted)