C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER II—FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › PART 215—RAILROAD FREIGHT CAR SAFETY STANDARDS › Subpart A—General

49 C.F.R. § 215.11

Designated inspectors

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

(a) Each railroad that operates railroad freight cars to which this part applies shall designate persons qualified to inspect railroad freight cars for compliance with this part and to make the determinations required by § 215.9 of this part.

(b) Each person designated under this section shall have demonstrated to the railroad a knowledge and ability to inspect railroad freight cars for compliance with the requirements of this part and to make the determinations required by § 215.9 of this part.

(c) With respect to designations under this section, each railroad shall maintain written records of:

(1) Each designation in effect; and

(2) The basis for each designation.

[45 FR 26710, Apr. 21, 1980]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2000–2018 · leading case: Henning v. Union Pac. R.R., 530 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Henning v. Union Pac. R.R., 530 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “In Mehl , the plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, the railroad failed to properly inspect the track and freight cars in violation of 49 C.F.R. §§ 215.11 and 215.13. Mehl, 417 F.”
Robert Zimmerman v. Norfolk S. Corp., 706 F.3d 170 (3rd Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “Canadian Pacific Railway alleged that the railroad had violated a number of regulations, including 49 C.F.R. §§ 215.11 and 215.13, which require railroads to inspect tracks and freight cars.”
Diehl v. CSX Transp., Inc., 349 F. Supp. 3d 487 (W.D. Pa. 2018). · cites it 2× “) Plaintiff primarily relies on 49 C.F.R. §§ 215.11 and 215.13 to support her claim that she has sufficiently alleged that Defendant violated a federal standard of care.”
Grade v. BNSF Ry. Co., 676 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 2012). “49 C.F.R. § 215.11 (a). “Similarly, federal regulations establish a specific inspection protocol including how, 49 C.”
Bradford v. Union Pac. R.R., 491 F. Supp. 2d 831 (W.D. Ark. 2007). “Plaintiffs’Remaining Claims Plaintiffs allege a variety of other negligence claims against Union Pacific, and the Court now turns to those claims which it has not yet addressed.”
Duprey v. Huron & E. Ry. Co., 604 N.W.2d 702 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “49 CFR 215.11. Section 215.13 requires that freight cars be inspected before the train departs, 49 CFR 215.”
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.