Notes of Decisions
In Re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 822 F.3d 125 (3rd Cir. 2016).
“, and the Safety, Appliance Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20301 et seq. The District Court granted the companies’ motion, holding that Hassell’s claims were preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act.”
Connie Strickland v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 692 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2012).
“, 2 and the *1154 Federal Safety Appliance Act (“FSAA”), 49 U.S.C. § 20301 et seg. 3 Subsequently, Norfolk Southern moved for summary judgment, contending that, in the absence of an identification of the rail car and the alleged faulty handbrake, there was insufficient evidence…”
Delaware & Hudson Ry. Co. v. Knoedler Mfrs., Inc., 781 F.3d 656 (3rd Cir. 2015).
· cites it 2× “, the Supreme Court stated that a railroad employee can enforce a violation of the Safety Appliance Acts (“SAAs”), 49 U.S.C. § 20301 et seq., through the FELA but that a “nonemployee must look for his remedy to a common law action in tort, which is to say that he must sue in a…”
Anderson v. BNSF Ry., 2015 MT 240 (Mont. 2015).
· cites it 2× “The same work assignment would be non-negligent if given to an employee without the physical condition at issue. It is the employer’s prior knowledge of the employee’s physical 1 As with any other claim under the FELA, liability in cumulative trauma injury claims may also be…”
Magna Trust Co. v. Illinois Cent. R.R., 728 N.E.2d 797 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
· cites it 2× “(Illinois Central), alleging a violation of the Safety Appliance Act ( 49 U.S.C. § 20301 et. seq. (1994)). Rusty Jones, an employee of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), suffered fatal injuries when he was crushed between two rail cars while attempting to adjust a coupler on one of…”
In Re West Virginia Asbestos Litig., 592 S.E.2d 818 (W. Va. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Are state tort law claims against manufacturers of parts or components of trains, locomotives, railcars, and similar vehicles used on any railroad, which is engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, preempted by federal law under the Safety Appliance Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20301 et…”
Hardlannert v. Illinois Cent. R.R., 928 N.E.2d 172 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 4× “§§51 through 60 (2000)) and the Federal Safety Appliance Act (FSAA) ( 49 U.S.C. §20301 et seq. (2000)) after he sustained a back injury while working on defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company’s switching tracks.”
Dennis Deans v. Csx Transp., Inc., 152 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 1998).
“(“CSX”), appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against him on his claims under the Federal Safety Appliances Act (“FSAA”), 49 U.S.C. § 20301 et seq., and the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 U.”
Scheiding v. Gen. Motors Corp., 993 P.2d 996 (Cal. 2000).
· cites it 2× “) We agree with the Court of Appeal that the foregoing principles govern the viability of plaintiffs' state law causes of action, which are based upon their claim defendant manufactured a defective product by utilizing asbestos in the design of its locomotives.”
Little v. Budd Co., 955 F.3d 816 (10th Cir. 2020).
“Alternatively, Budd asserts Little’s tort claims are preempted by the Safety Appliance Act (“SAA”), 49 U.S.C. §§ 20301 to 20306. This assertion, however, is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.”
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.