Upon receipt of a credible report of warning system malfunction involving an activation failure, a railroad having maintenance responsibility for the warning system shall promptly initiate efforts to warn highway users and railroad employees at the subject crossing by taking the following actions:
(a) Prior to any train's arrival at the crossing, notify the train crew of the report of activation failure and notify any other railroads operating over the crossing;
(b) Notify the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the crossing, or railroad police capable of responding and controlling vehicular traffic; and
(c) Provide for alternative means of actively warning highway users of approaching trains, consistent with the following requirements (see appendix B for a summary chart of alternative means of warning):
(1)(i) If an appropriately equipped flagger provides warning for each direction of highway traffic, trains may proceed through the crossing at normal speed.
(ii) If at least one uniformed law enforcement officer (including a railroad police officer) provides warning to highway traffic at the crossing, trains may proceed through the crossing at normal speed.
(2) If an appropriately equipped flagger provides warning for highway traffic, but there is not at least one flagger providing warning for each direction of highway traffic, trains may proceed with caution through the crossing at a speed not exceeding 15 miles per hour. Normal speed may be resumed after the locomotive has passed through the crossing.
(3) If there is not an appropriately equipped flagger or uniformed law enforcement officer providing warning to highway traffic at the crossing, each train must stop before entering the crossing and permit a crewmember to dismount to flag highway traffic to a stop. The locomotive may then proceed through the crossing, and the flagging crewmember may reboard the locomotive before the remainder of the train proceeds through the crossing.
(d) A locomotive's audible warning device shall be activated in accordance with railroad rules regarding the approach to a grade crossing.
Notes of Decisions
State v. CSX Transp., Inc., 2022 Ohio 2832 (Ohio 2022).
· cites it 4× “20134 and regulations created thereunder, including 49 C.F.R. 234.105, 234.106, 234.107, and 234.”
City of Weyauwega v. Wis. Cent. Ltd., 919 N.W.2d 609 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018).
“See 49 C.F.R. §§ 234.105 , 234.106, 234.107. Wisconsin Central's compliance with the federal regulations regarding movement and stopping at a crossing will, under some circumstances, cause Wisconsin Central to violate the ordinance because the stop required by the federal…”
Alabama Great S. Rr Co. v. Johnson, 874 So. 2d 517 (Ala. 2003).
· cites it 4× “In their brief, NSR and AGS also cite 49 C.F.R. § 234.105 through 234.107 in support of their assertion that federal law preempted any duty on their part to provide additional warning of the oncoming train W96, and specifically state that "in addition to the preemptive federal…”
CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Plymouth, 92 F. Supp. 2d 643 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
“49 C.F.R. § 234.105 ; 234.106; 234.107. Second, and more importantly, Defendants argue that federal law does not establish train speed.”
Randall v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 800 N.E.2d 951 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“Moreover, the federal regulations that Randall relies upon, 49 C.F.R. §§ 234.105 and 284.107, apply to situations where there is an activation failure or a false activation of the *957 warning system at the crossing.”
Mills v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 526 S.E.2d 585 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
“13 While 49 CFR § 234.105 (c) and (d) imposed such duties as of September 30, 1994, such minimum standards are some evidence of the standard of ordinary care by a reasonable, prudent, and experienced engineer under the same or similar circumstances in 1988.”
Petersen v. Union Pac. R.R., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (C.D. Ill. 2008).
· cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 234.105 . The Event Recorder on the date of the Collision contained data on the trains that had traveled through the Crossing from June 1, 2004, to the time of Collision on July 22, 2004.”
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.