49 C.F.R. § 220.49
Radio communication used in shoving, backing or pushing movements
When radio communication is used in connection with the shoving, backing or pushing of a train, locomotive, car, or on-track equipment, the employee directing the movement shall specify the distance of the movement, and the movement shall stop in one-half the remaining distance unless additional instructions are received. If the instructions are not understood, the movement shall be stopped immediately and may not be resumed until the misunderstanding has been resolved, radio contact has been restored, or communication has been achieved by hand signals or other procedures in accordance with the operating rules of the railroad.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1992–2018 · leading case: Clark v. Missouri & N. Arkansas Rr Co., Inc., 157 S.W.3d 665 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
Clark v. Missouri & N. Arkansas Rr Co., Inc., 157 S.W.3d 665 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). “In his second and final point, Clark argues that the trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error in failing to admit into evidence the text of 49 C.F.R. § 220.49 (which is a federal regulation promulgated by the Department of Transportation’s Federal…”
Bernard E. Walden v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., a Corp., 975 F.2d 361 (7th Cir. 1992). “49of the Federal Railroad Administration Radio Standards and Procedures, 49 C.F.R. § 220.49 , and held that the violation constituted negligence per se.”
Hardlannert v. Illinois Cent. R.R., 928 N.E.2d 172 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “However, the court held that the jury could reasonably find the plaintiff was in an area where he knew he could not appropriately brace himself during the coupling procedure, which exposed him to possible injury should the train suddenly stop.”
Parsons v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 2017 IL App (1st) 161384 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “” 49 C.F.R. § 220.49 (1998). -5- 1-16-1384 the wound reopened.”
Parsons v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 2017 IL App (1st) 161384 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “” 49 C.F.R. § 220.49 (1998). -4- that conductors may ride equipment “anywhere but the body of the yard,” but he was not aware of any rule defining the term “body of the yard.”
in the Matter of M. M., Jr., a Juv. (Tex. App. 2012). “By four issues, which we consolidate and address as three, BNSF disputes the trial court's charge to the jury on the "Radio Rule," which governs the communications used in shoving, backing, or pushing movements by trains, see 49 C.F.R. § 220.49 (2012); the trial court's failure…”
Hardlannert v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “However, the court held that the jury could reasonably find the plaintiff was in an area where he knew he could not appropriately brace himself during the coupling procedure, which exposed him to possible injury should the train suddenly stop. Critical to the determination that…”
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.