Supreme Court Reaffirms Federal Preemption Of State-Law Product Liability Claims Directed At Locomotive Equipment

On February 29, 2012, the United States Supreme Court held that a former railroad worker's state-law tort claims for design defect and failure to warn against manufacturers of locomotives and locomotive parts were preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20701, et seq. (LIA). Kurns v. R.R. Friction Prods. Corp., __ S. Ct. __, No. 10-879, 2012 WL 631857, at *9 (2012). In a 6 to 3 decision affirming summary judgment for the defendants, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims fell within the field of locomotive equipment regulation preempted by the LIA, as that field was defined 85 years ago in Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 272 U.S. 605 (1926).

Background

From 1947 to 1974, George Corson worked for the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad as a welder and machinist repairing and maintaining locomotives in maintenance facilities. His duties included working with asbestos insulation surrounding locomotive boilers and installing locomotive brakeshoes containing asbestos. In 2005, Corson was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. He and his wife filed suit in Pennsylvania state court against numerous defendants, including the railroad and the manufacturers and distributors of the products with which Corson worked. They alleged that those products were defectively designed because they contained asbestos and because they were not accompanied by adequate warnings regarding the dangers of asbestos exposure. They also alleged that the defendants negligently failed to warn of the risks associated with asbestos.

Following dismissal of most of the defendants — including the railroad, based on insufficient evidence of negligence — two defendants remained: Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC), an alleged distributor of locomotive brakeshoes containing asbestos, and Viad Corp, the alleged successor-in-interest to a company that manufactured and sold locomotives and engine valves containing asbestos. RFPC and Viad moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs' state-law claims were preempted by the LIA. The federal district court granted the motion and the Third Circuit affirmed.

Plaintiffs' Claims Fall Within the Field Preempted By the LIA

The doctrine of preemption is grounded in Article VI of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which provides that federal law "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." There are three types of federal preemption: express preemption (when a federal...