Summary
**Straub v. BNSF Ry. Co., 909 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2018)** The Tenth Circuit held that an engineer's chair with a defective seat adjustment mechanism is a "part or appurtenance" of a locomotive under the Federal Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), 49 U.S.C. § 20701, and that a railroad's failure to maintain such an installed chair in safe condition states a strict-liability claim under the LIA. The court distinguished "failure to maintain" claims from "failure to install" claims, rejecting the district court's reductive focus on the adjustment mechanism as a non-essential comfort device and instead emphasizing the integrated nature of the chair and its mounting system. The decision reversed dismissal of the FELA claim based on LIA violations and remanded, noting that 49 C.F.R. § 229.7 also requires maintaining the chair in proper condition.
Holdings
- The allegations set out in Straub’s complaint (i.e., that the engineer’s chair failed when moved initially and stopped abruptly as Straub was attempting to adjust it) state a violation of LIA. Once BNSF installed an engineer’s chair with a seat adjustment mechanism, 49 U.S.C. § 20701(1) mandated that BNSF maintain the chair so that the seat adjustment device be 'in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury' and 49 C.F.R. § 229.7 mandated that BNSF maintain the chair so that the seat adjustment mechanism was 'in proper condition and safe to operate in service . . . without unnecessary peril to life or limb.'
Questions Presented
- Whether the engineer's chair and its seat adjustment mechanism collectively constitute a 'part or appurtenance' of a locomotive under the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA).
- Whether the complaint states a claim for violation of LIA's general duty to maintain a locomotive in safe condition based on a failure to maintain the engineer's chair.
- Whether the district court erred in focusing on the seat adjustment mechanism in isolation rather than the engineer's chair as a whole.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (29)
- S. Ry. Co. v. Lunsford, 297 U.S. 398 (1936)(cited)
- King v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 855 F.2d 1485 (10th Cir. 1988)(distinguished)
- Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994)(cited)
- Kernan v. Am. Dredging Co., 355 U.S. 426 (1958)(cited)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (2011)(cited)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949)(cited)
- Garcia v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 818 F.2d 713 (10th Cir. 1987)(cited)
- Kurns v. R.R. Friction Prods. Corp., 565 U.S. 625 (2012)(cited)
- Lilly v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co., 317 U.S. 481 (1943)(cited)
- Matson v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 240 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2001)(cited)
Showing top 10 of 29.
Cited In (5)
- Straub v. BNSF Ry. Co., Straub v. BNSF Railway Co., 909 F.3d 1280, 1287 (10th Cir. 2018)(applied)
- Straub v. BNSF Ry. Co., Straub v. BNSF Railway Co., 909 F.3d 1280, 1287 (10th Cir. 2018)(followed)
- Straub v. BNSF Ry. Co., Straub v. BNSF Ry. Co., 909 F.3d 1280, 1287 (10th Cir. 2018)(followed)
- Straub v. BNSF Ry. Co., Straub v. BNSF Railway Co., 909 F.3d 1280, 1287 (10th Cir. 2018)(followed)
- Straub v. BNSF Ry. Co., Straub v. BNSF Railway Co., 909 F.3d 1280, 1287 (10th Cir. 2018)(followed)