Grade v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 10-3636 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff brought suit against BNSF, alleging common law negligence and seeking compensation for injuries he suffered when the automobile he was driving hit a BNSF railcar that was stopped at a railroad crossing. The district court granted summary judgment to BNSF, dismissing all of plaintiff's claims. Because the court agreed with the Tenth Circuit that the warning regulations did not create a federal standard of care under which the railroad was expected to act, the 2007 Amendments to the Federal Railway Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. 20106, had no effect on the prior case law relating to those regulations. As such, Norfolk Southern Railway v. Shanklin was not overruled by the 2007 Amendment and was controlling. Therefore, plaintiff's warning claims were preempted because the B Street Crossing warning system was paid for in party by federal funds. Further, the local-condition savings clause under the FRSA was not applicable. The court also held that the district court was correct in determining that plaintiff's claim of negligence based on failure to equip the railcar with reflective devices was preempted; the district court appropriately granted summary judgment based on lack of causation and the court need not reach the issue of whether plaintiff's claim was preempted; and the district court properly granted summary judgment as to plaintiff's claim that BNSF was negligent in failing to keep its rolling stock under reasonable and proper control and supervision.
Court Description: Civil case - torts. 2007 Amendments to the Railway Safety Act did not overrule Norfolk Southern Railway v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344 (2000), and under Shanklin, plaintiff's inadequacy-of-warning claims were preempted because the warning system in place at the scene of his accident was paid for in part by federal funds; local-conditions saving clause does not apply; claim that the defendant was negligent in failing to equip cars with warning lights or reflective devices was also preempted; plaintiff could not show that his injuries were the natural and proximate result of defendant's violation of a Nebraska law regarding the time limit for blocking a crossing; plaintiff failed to establish that the rail car was not under defendant's reasonable and proper control and supervision.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.