C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER II—FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › PART 213—TRACK SAFETY STANDARDS › Subpart B—Roadbed

49 C.F.R. § 213.37

Vegetation

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent to roadbed shall be controlled so that it does not—

(a) Become a fire hazard to track-carrying structures;

(b) Obstruct visibility of railroad signs and signals:

(1) Along the right-of-way, and

(2) At highway-rail crossings; (This paragraph (b)(2) is applicable September 21, 1999.)

(c) Interfere with railroad employees performing normal trackside duties;

(d) Prevent proper functioning of signal and communication lines; or

(e) Prevent railroad employees from visually inspecting moving equipment from their normal duty stations.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Richard J. Schmitz v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., Doing Bus. as Soo Line R.R. Co., a Corp., 454 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Richard J. Schmitz v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., Doing Bus. as Soo Line R.R. Co., a Corp., 454 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2006). · cites it 15× “A federal regulation imposed a duty on the railroad to control trackside vegetation, see 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 (c), and the district court should have so instructed the jury.”
Tennie Martin, et.al. v. S. Ry. Co., et.al., 271 S.W.3d 76 (Tenn. 2008). · cites it 2× “The moving party is entitled to summary judgment only if the “pleadings, depositions, answers to 2 By recognizing this duty, it is not our intent to encroach upon federal authority to regulate the railroad industry. Federal regulations currently address the maintenance of…”
O'Bannon Ex Rel. O'Bannon v. Union Pac. R.R., 960 F. Supp. 1411 (W.D. Mo. 1997). · cites it 7× “49 C.F.R. § 213.37 , promulgated by the Secretary of Transportation under the FRSA, addresses vegetation.”
Dedra Shanklin, Individually & as Next Friend of Her Son Jessie Guy Shanklin v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 369 F.3d 978 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “In particular, 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 states: “Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent to roadbed shall be controlled so that it does not .”
MD Mall Assocs., LLC v. CSX Transp., Inc., 715 F.3d 479 (3d Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “Other courts have likewise concluded that a federal regulation dictating that “[v]egetation on railroad property which is on or immediately 18 adjacent to [the] roadbed shall be controlled so that it does not … [o]bstruct visibility of railroad signs and signals,” 49 C.F.R. §…”
Union Pac. R.R. v. Barber, 149 S.W.3d 325 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 213.37 (2003) provides: Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent to roadbed shall be controlled so that it does not — (a) Become a fire hazard to track-carrying structures; (b) Obstruct visibility of railroad signs and signs and signals:…”
Alabama Great S. R. Co. v. Lee, 826 So. 2d 1232 (Miss. 2002). · cites it 2× “Next, AGS argues that 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 (1994) covers the subject matter of vegetation.”
Mrs. Lizzie Beatrice Easterwood v. Csx Transp., Inc., 933 F.2d 1548 (11th Cir. 1991). · cites it 2× “Under 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 (1990), track owners must keep vegetation on or immediately adjacent to the tracks under control.”
Stonebarger v. Union Pac. R.R., 76 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (D. Kan. 2015). · cites it 2× “Union Pacific does not argue that Plaintiffs’ claim is preempted by 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 , which requires a railroad to control vegetation on its property "on or immediately adjacent to roadbed.”
Nicholas Sapp v. CSX Transp. Inc., 478 F. App'x 961 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 5× “Sapp claimed that he was injured due to CSX’s failure to remove vegetation adjacent to its railroad track in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 (c), and in violation of its duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace.”
Wooten v. CSX R.R., 842 N.E.2d 603 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “In particular, 49 C.F.R. § 213.37 states: ‘Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent to roadbed shall be controlled so that it does not * * * (b) [o]bstruct visibility of railroad signs and signals * * *.”
Missouri Pac. R.R. v. MacKey, 760 S.W.2d 59 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 2× “The federal law on this point, which allegedly preempts the state law, is 49 CFR § 213.37 (1986). It reads as follows: "Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent to the road bed must be controlled so that it does not (a) become a fire hazard .”
Show all 65 citing cases →
49 C.F.R. § 213.37(b): 2 cases
Missouri Pac. R.R. v. Limmer, 180 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. App. 2005).
Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. D/B/A Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Patricia Limmer, Billye Joyce Smith & Bobbye Jean Nothnagel (Tex. App. 2005).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.