530 S.W.3d 782
Tex. App.2017Background
- During a 2012 parade in Midland, a Union Pacific train struck the second of two flatbed parade floats carrying veterans; four riders died and others were injured. Plaintiffs are survivors and estates of victims.
- The crossing’s warning system was programmed to provide 25 seconds (including 5 seconds buffer); at the time of collision the system provided ~20.4 seconds of warning before the train arrived.
- Plaintiffs sued for wrongful death and personal injuries, alleging violations of federal crossing-signal regulations (designed-warning-time and frequency-overlap) and negligence by the train crew; trial court granted partial summary judgment for Union Pacific on many claims and later entered final summary judgment for Union Pacific.
- Central regulatory focus: 49 C.F.R. § 234.225 (warning-system activation must follow the design of the warning system but not provide less than 20 seconds warning) and related FRA guidance interpreting “design of the warning system.”
- Plaintiffs argued the original 1979 master-agreement design required 30 seconds and that reprogramming and observed performance violated federal standards; Union Pacific argued current programmed design (25s) complied and the ~20.4s actual warning fell within acceptable variance and above the 20s minimum.
- The trial court held for Union Pacific; on appeal the court reviewed (de novo) federal preemption issues and the “specific, individual hazard” exception to preemption for train-crew negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warning-time claims are preempted by federal regulation (49 C.F.R. § 234.225) | The crossing’s original design required 30s; UA reprogramming and ~20.4s performance violated the "design of the warning system" standard, so state tort claim is allowed | Section 234.225’s design is the current, maintained/programmed setting; the system met the federal minimum (20s) and performance fell within FRA’s acceptable variance | Warning-time claims preempted; summary judgment for Union Pacific affirmed (system complied with federal standard) |
| Whether gross negligence claims survive summary judgment based on the warning-time/frequency-overlap theory | Frequency-overlap and design violation establish objective/subjective elements for gross negligence | Because warning-time claims fail (preempted), the gross-negligence theory relying on them fails | Gross-negligence claims fail; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether train-crew negligence claim is exempt from preemption under the "specific, individual hazard" exception (Easterwood) | The first tractor-trailer that crossed constituted a specific, individual hazard that put the crew on notice to slow or stop | The first tractor-trailer cleared the crossing safely and did not indicate an imminent collision with the second trailer; no specific, individual hazard existed | Exception does not apply; train-crew negligence claim preempted and summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- CSX Transp. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1993) (establishes narrow "specific, individual hazard" exception to railroad-safety preemption)
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344 (U.S. 2000) (federal regulations covering a subject preempt state tort claims under FRSA)
- Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Limmer, 299 S.W.3d 78 (Tex. 2009) (discusses FRSA preemption and federal uniformity in railroad safety regulation)
- Nunez v. BNSF Ry. Co., 730 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2013) (state remedy allowed for negligence resulting from violation of federal railroad safety regulations)
- Anderson v. Wis. Cent. Transp. Co., 327 F. Supp. 2d 969 (E.D. Wis. 2004) (prior vehicle’s conduct can, in narrow circumstances, constitute a "specific, individual hazard")
- Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas v. Hogue, 271 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. 2008) (standard for gross negligence requires objective and subjective elements)