Upon receipt of a credible report of a false activation, a railroad having maintenance responsibility for the highway-rail grade crossing warning system shall promptly initiate efforts to warn highway users and railroad employees at the crossing by taking the following actions:
(a) Prior to a train's arrival at the crossing, notify the train crew of the report of false activation 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 is providing 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 there is not an appropriately equipped flagger providing warning for each direction of highway traffic, or if there is not at least one uniformed law enforcement officer providing warning, trains with the locomotive or cab car leading, 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. In the case of a shoving move, a crewmember shall be on the ground to flag the train through the crossing.
(3) In lieu of complying with paragraphs (c) (1) or (2) of this section, a railroad may temporarily take the warning system out of service if the railroad complies with all requirements of § 234.105, “Activation failure.”
(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
Stone v. CSX Transp., Inc., 37 F. Supp. 2d 789 (S.D.W. Va 1999).
· cites it 4× “See 49 C.F.R. § 234.107 (a) -(c). The railroad must also take certain specified actions when a false activation occurs.”
Winford Hartry v. Ron Johnson Jr. Enter., Inc., 815 S.E.2d 611 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “NS argued that its duty was controlled by 49 CFR § 234.107 promulgated by the FRA under the FRSA, which laid out the actions to be taken after a railway received a "credible report" of a crossing malfunction and that because there was no "credible report" of a crossing…”
Lacy v. CSX Transp., Inc., 520 S.E.2d 418 (W. Va. 1999).
· cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. § 234.107 (1998). [6] The instruction informed the jury that it is your duty to make an honest and sincere effort [to] .”
Murrell v. Union Pac. R.R., 544 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (D. Or. 2008).
· cites it 2× “if warning signals have been falsely activated, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 234.107 (c)(2). In addition, a FRA track inspector may downgrade a track segment which does not meet the requirements of a particular class to the next lowest class until the requirements are met.”
Platt v. CSX Transp., Inc., 665 S.E.2d 631 (S.C. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “" 49 C.F.R. § 234.107 . Platt relies on South Carolina Code section 57-5-10 (2006), in alleging the Department was responsible for the malfunctioning signals.”
Price v. Nat'l RR Passenger Corp., 2000 UT App 333 (Utah Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “The court also held that a separate claim of negligence was not preempted because the malfunctioning gate constituted a specific individual hazard.”
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Hartry, 307 Ga. 566 (Ga. 2019).
“Norfolk Southern argues that its duty was controlled by 49 CFR § 234.107 , promulgated by the FRA under FRSA, which lays out the actions to be taken after a railway receives a “credible report” of a crossing malfunction, and that because there was no “credible report” as defined…”
Stevenson v. Union Pac. R.R., 110 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (E.D. Ark. 2000).
“For example, federal regulations provide that if a false activation of warning signals at a crossing has occurred, passing trains must slow to 15 m.”
Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co., 738 F. Supp. 2d 932 (E.D. Mo. 2010).
“233 (setting forth the requirements for FRSA-required track inspections by owners of railroad track); 49 C.F.R. § 234.107 (c)(2) (requiring slow orders in certain circumstances at road crossings where a warning signal is falsely activated); 49 C.”
Winford Hartry v. Ron Johnson Jr. Enter., Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “And what particular action a railroad should take to address a given workplace hazard is a question of whether the railroad breached the standard of care, which is a question for the jury.”
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.