Straub v. BNSF Ry. Co.
909 F.3d 1280
10th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff George Straub, a BNSF locomotive engineer, injured his back and neck when the engineer’s seat moved and then stopped abruptly while he adjusted it on Locomotive No. 6295.
- Straub sued under FELA, alleging LIA-based strict-liability theories (as negligence per se): general statutory duty (49 U.S.C. § 20701) and violations of FRA regulations (49 C.F.R. pts. 229.7, 229.21, 229.45).
- BNSF moved to dismiss, arguing LIA strict liability only covers parts required by regulation or "integral or essential" parts of a locomotive; it contended the seat-adjustment mechanism was a nonessential comfort item.
- The district court granted dismissal, relying on this court’s King decision and treating the adjustment mechanism in isolation as legally inessential.
- On appeal, Straub argued the court should treat the entire engineer’s chair (including its adjustment mechanism) as an integrated part/appurtenance and that the claim was a "failure to maintain," not a forbidden "failure to install."
- The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding Straub’s complaint plausibly alleged that the chair (with its adjustment mechanism) was an appurtenance of the locomotive and that a failure to maintain it can state a LIA-based claim under the general statutory duty and 49 C.F.R. § 229.7.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LIA strict liability can attach to the engineer’s chair/adjustment mechanism | Straub: the chair and adjustment mechanism are one integrated unit and an appurtenance; failure to maintain it violates LIA | BNSF: the adjustment mechanism is a mere comfort device, not an integral or regulated part, so LIA does not apply | Reversed: complaint plausibly alleges the chair (including adjustment mechanism) is an appurtenance and a failure to maintain can state a LIA-based claim |
| Whether King controls to limit claims to "failure to install" matters | Straub: King does not bar "failure to maintain" claims and courts should analyze the installed item as a whole | BNSF: King supports narrow analysis and dismissal where item is not required by regulation | Held: King distinguishes failure-to-install claims from maintainence claims; it does not authorize dissecting an installed chair into nonessential components |
| Whether FRA regulations (e.g., §229.7, §229.45) independently support strict liability | Straub: §229.7 and related regs impose a duty to keep the entire locomotive and appurtenances safe | BNSF: no regulation requires the specific adjustment device, so regulatory strict liability fails | Held: §229.7 supports the conclusion that the chair is a part/appurtenance for purposes of LIA; court did not decide whether regulations alone would suffice to send strict-liability claims to a jury |
| Proper pleading standard on Rule 12(b)(6) review when exhibits show integration | Straub: complaint plus attached photos/instructions plausibly show integration; dismissal premature | BNSF: court should parse component parts and dismiss as a matter of law | Held: under Twombly/Iqbal standards and considering attachments, Straub plausibly pleaded an integrated chair-appurtenance and survived dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- S. Ry. Co. v. Lunsford, 297 U.S. 398 (recognizing LIA covers "integral or essential" parts of a completed locomotive)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (LIA construed with FELA; LIA supplies strict-liability substitute for negligence)
- Lilly v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co., 317 U.S. 481 (carrier has absolute duty to keep locomotive parts in proper condition and safe to operate)
- King v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 855 F.2d 1485 (10th Cir.) (distinguishes failure-to-install claims from failure-to-maintain claims)
- Oglesby v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 6 F.3d 603 (9th Cir.) (analyzing LIA claims with focus on the engineer’s chair as an integrated item)