49 U.S.C. § 20701

Requirements for use

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar

A railroad carrier may use or allow to be used a locomotive or tender on its railroad line only when the locomotive or tender and its parts and appurtenances—(1) are in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury;(2) have been inspected as required under this chapter and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation under this chapter; and(3) can withstand every test prescribed by the Secretary under this chapter.(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 885.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
20701	45:23.	Feb. 17, 1911, ch. 103, § 2, 36 Stat. 913; Mar. 4, 1915, ch. 169, § 1, 38 Stat. 1192; restated June 7, 1924, ch. 355, § 2, 43 Stat. 659; June 22, 1988, Pub. L. 100–342, § 14(2), 102 Stat. 632.
	45:30 (1st sentence related to 45:23).	Mar. 4, 1915, ch. 169, § 2 (1st sentence related to § 2 of Act of Feb. 17, 1911), 38 Stat. 1192; Apr. 22, 1940, ch. 124, § 2, 54 Stat. 148.
	49 App.:1655(e)(1)(E), (F).	Oct. 15, 1966, Pub. L. 89–670, § 6(e)(1)(E), (F), 80 Stat. 939.

In this section, before clause (1), the words “locomotive or tender . . . locomotive or tender and its parts and appurtenances” are substituted for “locomotive . . . locomotive, its boiler, tender, and all parts and appurtenances thereof” in 45:23 and “the provision of sections 22 to 29 . . . of this title as to the equipment of locomotives shall apply to and include the entire locomotive and tender and all their parts with the same force and effect as it applies to locomotive boilers and their appurtenances” in 45:30 for clarity and because of the restatement. In clause (1), the words “in the service to which the same are put” and “in the active service of such railroad” in 45:23 are omitted as surplus. The words “danger of personal injury” are substituted for “peril to life or limb” for clarity and consistency in this part. In clause (2), the words “from time to time” are omitted as surplus. The words “as required under this chapter and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation under this chapter” are substituted for “in accordance with the provisions of sections 22 to 29 and 31 to 34 of this title” for clarity and consistency. In clause (3), the words “prescribed by the Secretary under this chapter” are substituted for “prescribed in the rules and regulations hereinafter provided for” for clarity and because of the restatement.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 226 cases (44 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Straub v. BNSF Ry. Co., 909 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Straub v. BNSF Ry. Co., 909 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2018). · cites it 10× “Straub brought suit, asserting BNSF was, inter alia, strictly liable for his injuries under the provisions of the Federal Locomotive Inspection Act ("LIA"), 49 U.S.C. § 20701 - 20703, and its implementing regulations, 49 C.”

Kurns v. R.R. Friction Prods. Corp., 132 S. Ct. 1261 (2012). · cites it 8× “Respondents removed the case to the Federal District Court, which granted them summary judgment, ruling that the state-law claims were pre-empted by the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), 49 U. S. C. §20701 et seq. The Third Circuit affirmed.”

In Re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 822 F.3d 125 (3rd Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “Budd and Resco moved to dismiss, arguing that Hassell’s claims were preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20701 et seq., and the Safety, Appliance Act, 49 U.”

Delaware & Hudson Ry. Co. v. Knoedler Mfrs., Inc., 781 F.3d 656 (3rd Cir. 2015). · cites it 12× “This case requires us to determine the scope of federal preemption under the Locomotive Inspection Act (“LIA”), 49 U.S.C. § 20701 . Appellant Delaware & Hudson Railway Company, Inc.”

Kurns v. A.W. Chesterton Inc., 620 F.3d 392 (3rd Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “While the suit was filed in state court, the matter was removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, and the District Court granted the appellees Viad Corporation and Railroad Friction Products Corporation’s motions for summary judgment, holding that the…”

Wright v. Arkansas & Missouri R.R., 574 F.3d 612 (8th Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “, and the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), 49 U.S.C. § 20701 , et seq. The district court [2] granted AMR's motion for summary judgment on Wright's LIA claim after holding that the train was not "in use" at the time of the accident.”

Whaley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 609 S.E.2d 286 (S.C. 2005). · cites it 4× “, and the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), 49 U.S.C. § 20701 et seq., and alleging, in sum, that CSX was negligent for failing to provide him with a safe place to work.”

Raab v. Utah Ry. Co., 2009 UT 61 (Utah 2009). · cites it 4× “10 The provision of FLIA at issue in this case is 49 U.S.C. § 20701 , which provides: A railroad carrier may use or allow to be used a locomotive or tender on its railroad line only when the locomotive or tender and its parts and appurtenances (1) are in proper condition and…”

Balough v. Ne. Illinois Reg'l Commuter R.R., 950 N.E.2d 680 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 5× “(2000)), for a violation of the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) ( 49 U.S.C. §20701 et seq. (2000)), and for negligence.”

Martin v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2015 MT 167 (Mont. 2015). · cites it 6× “The jury returned a verdict in favor of BNSF on negligence and strict liability claims for violations of the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), 49 U.S.C. § 20701 . On November 20, 2013, Martin filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law under M.”

Scheiding v. Gen. Motors Corp., 993 P.2d 996 (Cal. 2000). · cites it 6× “(See 49 U.S.C. § 20701 [BIA speaks expressly to "railroad carrier[s]" and not manufacturers]; but see id.”

Ricky Edwards v. CSX Transp. Inc., 821 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “229; see also 49 U.S.C. § 20701 . Had the toilet not been so dirty, he claimed, he would have gone there to vomit instead of heading outside to the catwalk and thus never-would have fallen.”

Show all 226 citing cases →

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.