49 U.S.C. § 20903
Reports not evidence in civil actions for damages
No part of an accident or incident report filed by a railroad carrier under section 20901 of this title or made by the Secretary of Transportation under section 20902 of this title may be used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2021 · leading case: Robert Zimmerman v. Norfolk S. Corp., 706 F.3d 170 (3rd Cir. 2013).
Robert Zimmerman v. Norfolk S. Corp., 706 F.3d 170 (3rd Cir. 2013). “§ 409 and 49 U.S.C. § 20903 . Zimmerman argues that the District Court 16 misconstrued these privileges.”
Vigil v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 521 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (D.N.M. 2007). “The Court further finds: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Federal Preemption) should be granted as to Plaintiffs' claims relating to the speed of the train and the adequacy of the whistle and denied as to claims that the train crew failed to properly sound the whistle;…”
Stark-Romero v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Co., 276 F.R.D. 531 (D.N.M. 2011). “§ 409 and 49 U.S.C. § 20903 . They also argue that Amtrak and BNSF Railway have failed to establish the work-product protection they assert.”
City of Atlanta v. Watson, 475 S.E.2d 896 (Ga. 1996). “[32] This section is now codified as 49 U.S.C. § 20903 . [33] See Torchia v. Burlington Northern, Inc.”
Jose Villa v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., Ass'n of Am. Railroads, Amicus on Behalf Of, 397 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. 2005). “” It argues that the information included in the form parallels the information in the privileged reports filed with the FRA that 49 U.S.C. § 20903 excepts from use in a civil action for damages.”
Tyree v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 973 F. Supp. 786 (W.D. Tenn. 1997). “Likewise, the Court finds that defendants cannot base removal jurisdiction on the grounds that 49 U.S.C. § 20903 satisfies the complete preemption doctrine.”
Vigil v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 521 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (D.N.M. 2007). “The Court further finds: Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Federal Preemption) should be granted as to Plaintiffs’ claims relating to the speed of the train and the adequacy of the whistle and denied as to claims that the train crew failed to properly sound the whistle;…”
Adcox v. Medtronic, Inc., 131 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (E.D. Ark. 1999). “(4) 49 U.S.C.A. § 20903 reads: "No part of an accident or incident report.”
Ross v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 63 F. Supp. 3d 1330 (W.D. Okla. 2014). “Defendant also contends that certain accident reports created and submitted by BNSF to the FRA are inadmissible pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 20903 . 23 U.S.C. § 409 provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected…”
Adamy v. South Buffalo Ry. Co., 294 A.D.2d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). “The stat *803 ute expressly provides that “[n]o part of [such report] * * * may be used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report” ( 49 USC § 20903 ; see also Tyree v Burlington N.”
Ellenbecker v. BNSF Ry. Co. (D. Neb. 2019). “BNSF objected to many of the requests and produced a privilege log identifying 75 documents being withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, and 49 U.S.C. § 20903 & 49 C.F.R. § 225.7 (b).”
Jose Villa v. Burlington N. (8th Cir. 2005). “” It argues that the information included in the form parallels the information in the privileged reports filed with the FRA that 49 U.S.C. § 20903 excepts from use in a civil action for damages.”
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.