CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood
Headline: Federal railroad safety rules block a state excessive-speed negligence claim but do not pre-empt a claim about missing crossing warning devices, letting the local device lawsuit proceed in this Cartersville, Georgia, collision case.
Holding: The Court held that federal railroad safety rules pre-empt a state excessive-speed negligence claim but do not pre-empt a state claim about inadequate crossing warning devices when the relevant federal device regulations and funding conditions do not apply.
- Bars state excessive-speed lawsuits when federal rail-speed rules cover the same subject.
- Allows warning-device negligence claims unless federal funds and device rules applied.
- Leaves open claims to slow or stop trains to avoid immediate, specific hazards.
Summary
Background
A widow sued the railroad after her husband was killed when his truck was hit by a CSX train at the Cook Street crossing in Cartersville, Georgia. She alleged the railroad failed to keep proper warning devices at the crossing and that the train was traveling too fast. The District Court granted summary judgment for CSX on both claims; the Court of Appeals said the speed claim was pre-empted but the warning-device claim was not. The Supreme Court took the case to decide how the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) affects such state lawsuits.
Reasoning
The Court focused on FRSA §434, which says federal safety regulations can pre-empt state rules when the Secretary has adopted regulations “covering the subject matter.” The Court found that some federal rules about installing active warning devices (gates, flashing lights) do displace state tort duties when the specific federal device rules apply — for example when federal funds “participate in the installation” under 23 CFR §§646.214(b)(3)–(4). But the record showed federal funds and the device rules did not apply to the Cook Street installation, so the warning-device claim was not pre-empted. By contrast, the Court read the FRA speed regulation, 49 CFR §213.9(a), together with related safety rules, as covering train speed in light of track conditions, and therefore concluded the widow’s common-law excessive-speed claim was pre-empted.
Real world impact
The decision means plaintiffs cannot bring state negligence claims that attempt to impose additional rules about train speed when federal speed regulations already “cover the subject matter.” At the same time, local claims about inadequate warning devices can proceed unless specific federal device rules and funding conditions apply. The ruling resolves the pre-emption question but does not decide the railroad’s liability on the merits, and related claims (for example, duties to slow or stop to avoid a particular hazard) may remain available.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Souter) agreed with parts of the opinion but disagreed about speed. He argued the federal speed rules were aimed at track safety and did not cover train-speed as a factor at crossings, so state speed claims should survive. He warned the Court’s view could leave a gap in state protection.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?