49 C.F.R. § 234.225
Activation of warning system
A highway-rail grade crossing warning system shall be maintained to activate in accordance with the design of the warning system, but in no event shall it provide less than 20 seconds warning time for the normal operation of through trains before the grade crossing is occupied by rail traffic.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2021 · leading case: Lacy v. CSX Transp., Inc., 520 S.E.2d 418 (W. Va. 1999).
Lacy v. CSX Transp., Inc., 520 S.E.2d 418 (W. Va. 1999). “As a result, according to plaintiffs, CSX was not using the warning system in accordance with its design, and thus was not in compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 234.225 (1998). [2] Several witnesses, including Sullivan, testified to their past experience of encountering extended…”
Mills v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 526 S.E.2d 585 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). “On motion for reconsideration, Norfolk Southern argues that reliance upon 49 CFR § 234.225 is misplaced, because it was not adopted until 1994, and the collision occurred in 1988.”
Mary Margaret Wright v. CSX Transp., 375 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2004). “49 C.F.R. § 234.225 ("A highway-rail grade crossing warning system shall be maintained to activate in accordance with the design of the warning system, but in no event shall it provide less than 20 seconds warning time.”
Stouffer v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 530 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. App. 2017). “The warning time regulation that is relevant to this ease is 49 C.F.R. § 234.225 , entitled “Activation of warning system.”
Petersen v. Union Pac. R.R., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (C.D. Ill. 2008). “49 C.F.R. § 234.225 . The failure to activate as required by § 234.”
Nunez v. BNSF Ry. Co., 936 F. Supp. 2d 969 (C.D. Ill. 2012). “PREEMPTION BNSF argues that Plaintiffs claims are preempted because there are two regulations that cover the bases for this litigation: 49 C.F.R. 234.225, which covers the timing required for signal warnings, and 49 C.”
Asmar v. BNSF Ry. Co. (E.D. Cal. 2021). “All of the active warning devices at the crossing operated as intended at the time of 26 the incident in compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 234.225 . (Id. at 3, ¶ 11). 27 10.”
Gaston v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. (S.D. Ohio 2020). “Plaintiff acknowledges that 49 C.F.R. § 234.225 , the federal regulation which establishes the 20- second rule for crossing lights, does not apply here because the lights were manually activated (not automatically triggered) and because the train was stopped in close proximity…”
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.