Weber v. BNSF Railway Co., 2011 MT 223

Weber, a locomotive engineer for BNSF, was on a two-person coal train with distributed power (DP) in February 2007 and approached Tunnel 3 where DP must be isolated.
Weber stopped to isolate DP because she had not done so, causing train bunching and stalling on single-track tunnel approach.
A knuckle broke during maneuvering, the train went into emergency, and maintenance crews were unable to immediately fix the issue; the default code ‘BLD’ appeared on the control screen with unclear meaning.
Maintenance and supervision (including Trainmaster Cullison) were involved; Weber remained in the cab inside the tunnel while others attempted to resolve the problem and move the train.
Weber developed post-incident symptoms (nausea, headaches, fatigue, cognitive issues) over the ensuing weeks and months, leading to a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) claim, including LIA and SAA counts; PET scan testing in 2008 suggested carbon monoxide exposure, prompting litigation challenges over admissibility of PET evidence.
The District Court granted BNSF’s in limine motion to exclude PET results; the jury ultimately found no negligence by BNSF on the FELA claim, and Weber appealed challenging the LIA dismissal and PET testimony exclusion.
The Supreme Court of Montana reversed in part and remanded for retrial consistent with its opinion, including submission of the LIA claim to a jury and addressing the PET testimony issue on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
LIA claim presented to jury?	Weber argues the District Court erred in dismissing/excluding the LIA claim.	BNSF contends LIA requires proof of a statutory violation with no independent proximate-cause framework; and no proper evidence supported submission.	LIA claim properly triable by jury; district court erred in dismissing the LIA claim.
Admissibility of PET scan results through treating physician	Weber contends Dr. Batty could testify relying on Dr. Alzheimer’s PET interpretation to support a causal link.	District court properly excluded due to lack of foundation and reliability; PET results cannot be bootstrapped to causation.	District court did not err in excluding PET evidence via Dr. Batty; affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded.

CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 131 S. Ct. 2630 (2011) (CSX extends FELA causation standard for statutory violations (negligence per se))
Oglesby v. S.P. Transp. Co., 6 F.3d 603 (9th Cir. 1993) (requires showing unsafe condition; analysis differs when defect affects function rather than safety hazard)
Grogg v. Missouri P.R. Co., 841 F.2d 210 (8th Cir. 1988) (proof of malfunction or failure to perform the intended service supports LIA violation)
S. Ry. Co. v. Bryan, 375 F.2d 155 (5th Cir.1967) (test for LIA violation: locomotive/part failed to perform properly)
Carter v. Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Ry. Co., 338 U.S. 430 (1949) (LIA violation when equipment unsafe to operate; per se analysis under FELA)
Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949) (ancillary safety statutes provide absolute duty to provide safe equipment)