Cаrl Key, a train engineer for Norfolk Southern Railway Company (“Norfolk”), filed suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”) and the Boiler Inspection Act (“BIA”) to recover damages from his employer for injuries he sustainеd in a July 1992 fall from a locomotive. Key claimed that while descending from the locomotive using its three built-in stеps, he missed the middle step and fell. Key and his expert allege the fall was caused by the dangerously defective design of the steps, in that the tread on the middle step was recessed and did not “line up” with the first аnd third steps. After examining evidence showing the steps complied with federal design regulations issued pursuant to the BIA, 1 the trial court held these regulations preempted Key’s common-law allegations of negligеnce and showed, as a matter of law, that the steps were properly designed. The trial court accordingly granted Norfolk’s motion for summary judgment, and Key appeals. For the following reasons, we dffirm.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, construed in the nonmovant’s favor, shows no issue of mаterial fact remains and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). “A defendant who will not bear the burden of proof at trial need not affirmatively disprove the nonmoving party’s case; instead, the burden on the moving party may be discharged by pointing out by reference to the affidavits, depositions аnd other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. [Cit.]”
Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins,
We find that federal railroad safety regulations preempt Key’s
*306
common-law allegations of negligence and show, as a matter of law, that these steps were not “defectively designed.” “It is well established that in enacting FELA, [45 USC § 51 et seq.], Congress superseded state law remedies in the subject arеa covered by FELA and provided the exclusive remedy for employees of common carriеrs injured by the negligence of their employers. [Cits.]”
Bowers v. Estep,
Pursuant to its authority under the BIA, the FRA issued regulation 49 CFR § 231.30. That regulation, accompanied by schematic diagrams, describes in detail the construction and materials requirements for steps on locomotives such аs the one from which Key fell. The trial court found the steps on this locomotive complied with this apрlicable regulation, and Key does not contest that finding on appeal. Because the FRA has stаted that these steps are appropriately designed, the testimony of Key’s expert to the contrary is immaterial.
Although Key argues that his expert’s testimony does not represent an effort to assеrt a state law or common-law claim of negligence, we find that it represents just such an attempt. Allowing a jury to agree with Key’s expert, find the railroad negligently designed the steps, and award damages aсcordingly would, in effect, result in state or common-law regulation. Such “regulation can be as effectively exerted through an award of damages as through some form of preventive relief. The obligatiоn to pay compensation can be, indeed is designed to be, a potent method of governing conduct and
*307
controlling policy.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Cipollone v. Liggett Group,
In support of his argument that the BIA regulatiоns do not preclude a claim of negligent design, Key cites cases which involve or discuss a carrier’s failure to maintain its locomotive in good repair (Bolan v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 167 F2d 934, 936 (2nd Cir. 1948)) or a carrier’s failure to employ safety features which are not required by regulation but are nonetheless “an integral or essential part of a completed locomotive.” Mosco v. Baltimore & Ohio R., 817 F2d 1088, 1091 (4th Cir. 1987). This case involves neither factual scenario.
Judgment affirmed.