Wells v. BNSF Railway Company

No. 24-4802 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2026) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · February 24, 2026 · No. 24-4802

Summary

The Ninth Circuit reversed a judgment awarding compensatory damages to the estates of two former Libby, Montana residents who developed mesothelioma after asbestos exposure. Applying Montana law, the panel held that the common carrier exception to strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities protected BNSF from the plaintiffs’ strict liability claims arising from its federally mandated transportation of asbestos-containing vermiculite. The court declined to certify the issue to the Montana Supreme Court and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for BNSF.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Morgan B. Christen; Consuelo M. Callahan; Andrew D. Hurwitz
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
February 24, 2026
Docket number
24-4802
Procedural posture
BNSF appealed from a judgment entered after a jury trial in favor of the plaintiffs on strict liability claims. The plaintiffs cross-requested certification of a state-law question to the Montana Supreme Court.
Standard of review
De novo review of the district court's interpretation of state law.
Precedential value
published
Parties
BNSF Railway Company v. Jackson Wells, as personal representative for the Estate of Thomas E. Wells, deceased, Judith Hemphill, as personal representative for the Estate of Joyce H. Walder, deceased
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

strict liabilityappellate procedurestandard of reviewfederalisminterstate disputes

Practice areas

tortsstrict liabilityrail transportationappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Montana's common carrier exception to strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities protects BNSF from strict liability for asbestos dust that escaped from railcars during BNSF's federally mandated transportation of vermiculite and accumulated in its railyard.
  2. Whether the Ninth Circuit should certify to the Montana Supreme Court the question whether the common carrier exception applies to BNSF's conduct.

Holdings

  1. Montana's common carrier exception protects BNSF from strict liability for harm caused by asbestos-containing vermiculite that escaped and accumulated during BNSF's federally mandated transportation of the material.
  2. Certification was unwarranted because Montana law sufficiently answered whether the common carrier exception applied to BNSF's transportation-related conduct.

Key quotations

The common carrier exception bars the imposition of “strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities . . . if the activity is carried on in pursuance of a public duty imposed upon the actor . . . as a common carrier.” (11)
That theory, which assumes that the risk of harm would have been eliminated if BNSF had “adequately clean[ed]” its railyard, effectively treats Plaintiffs’ strict liability claims as negligence claims. (17)
We therefore conclude that certification is unwarranted because there is sufficient Montana state law to answer the question presented. (19)

Factual background

From 1922 to 1990, federal law required BNSF to transport asbestos-containing vermiculite from a mine near Libby, Montana, through BNSF's Libby railyard and onward to destinations nationwide. Asbestos-containing vermiculite escaped from railcars during transportation and switching operations and accumulated along the tracks and in the railyard. Thomas Wells and Joyce Walder lived in or near Libby, were exposed to asbestos, developed mesothelioma, and died; their estates sued BNSF.

Procedural history

The plaintiffs filed negligence and strict liability claims in the United States District Court for the District of Montana in 2021. The district court denied BNSF's motions for summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law on the strict liability claims. After a ten-day trial, the jury rejected the negligence and punitive-damages claims but awarded each estate $4 million on strict liability claims. The district court denied BNSF's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, and BNSF timely appealed.

Remand instructions

Remand to the district court with instructions to enter judgment for BNSF.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…