STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
03-818
BETTY JEAN HARGROVE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NATURAL TUTRIX OF JESSICA BANKS
VERSUS
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., ET AL.
********** APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON DAVIS, NO. C-129-97 HONORABLE WENDELL R. MILLER, DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
********** ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX JUDGE **********
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Oswald A. Decuir, and Jimmie C. Peters, Judges.
REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR TRIAL ON THE MERITS.
Elizabeth Sheridan Hardy Thomas & Hardy 2380 Lake St. Lake Charles, LA 70601 Telephone: (337) 433-4903 COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiff/Appellant - Betty Jean Hargrove
Sera Hearn Russell, III P. O. Box 53866 Lafayette, LA 70505-3866 Telephone: (337) 237-7171 COUNSEL FOR: Appellee - Ricky Haley John Edmund McElligott, Jr. Davidson, Meaux, Sonnier & McElligott P. O. Box 2908 Lafayette, LA 70502-2908 Telephone: (337) 237-1660 COUNSEL FOR: Defendants/Appellees - Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Tommy Comeaux, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, and Tommy Comeaux
Thomas Joseph Solari Woodley, Williams, Boudreau, Norman, Brown & Doyle P. O. Box 3731 Lake Charles, LA 70602-3731 Telephone: (337) 433-6328 COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellee - Progressive Security Insurance Company
LaVon Denise Raymond Bureau of Legal Services P. O. Box 3836 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3836 Telephone: (225) 342-3425 COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellee - State of Louisiana, Department of Health & Hospitals
Thomas E. Townsley 711 Pujo Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Telephone: (337) 430-0994 COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiff/Appellant - Betty Jean Hargrove THIBODEAUX, Judge.
This appeal arises out of an automobile/train accident which occurred at
the intersection of Cary Avenue and Union Pacific Railroad Company’s (Union
Pacific) mainline track in Jennings, Louisiana. On September 26, 1996, a vehicle
operated by Ricky J. Haley (Haley), collided with a Union Pacific train. Betty Jean
Hargrove, individually and as natural tutrix of Jessica Banks, who were passengers in
the Haley vehicle, filed suit for personal injuries against both Haley and Union
Pacific. One of their claims is that the warning devices at the crossing were
inadequate and that Union Pacific should be held liable. Union Pacific countered that
the crossing warnings and signage were installed pursuant to a federally-funded
project and, therefore, any state law claims that the plaintiffs have with respect to
inadequate warning devices at the crossing are preempted by federal law. Union
Pacific filed a motion for partial summary judgment and motion in limine requesting
that the trial court dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims regarding inadequate railroad crossing
warning signals and to preclude the plaintiffs from addressing any issues with respect
to the crossing signals at trial.
The trial court concluded that the project to install the advance warning
signs at the Cary Avenue railroad crossing in Jennings, Louisiana, used federal funds
and, therefore, any state claims against the railroad with respect to the inadequacy of
the signage was preempted by federal law. Therefore, the trial court granted Union
Pacific’s motions for summary judgment and in limine. The plaintiffs now appeal.
For the reasons stated below, we reverse the summary judgment granted by the trial
court, affirm the trial court judgment on the use of documents relating to highway
safety information pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 409, and remand for trial on the merits.
1 I.
ISSUES
We shall consider:
(1) whether the trial court erred in finding that Union Pacific met its burden of proving that federal law preempted state law in this railroad crossing collision case; and,
(2) whether 23 U.S.C. § 409 creates a privilege which prohibited Union Pacific from introducing documents related to highway safety information to show the source of funds used to install warning signage at a railroad crossing.
II.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
Federal Railroad Preemption Requirements Under 23 C.F.R. §§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4)
Recently, the Supreme Court in Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Shanklin,
529 U.S. 344, 348, 120 S.Ct. 1467, 1471 (2000), explained the enactment of the
Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) as follows:
In 1970, Congress enacted the . . . FRSA “to promote safety in every area of railroad operations and reduce railroad-related accidents and incidents.” 49 U.S.C. § 20101. The FRSA grants the Secretary of Transportation the authority to “prescribe regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety,” § 20134(a). The FRSA also contains an express pre-emption provision, which states:
“Laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad safety shall be nationally uniform to the extent practicable. A State may adopt or continue in force a law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety until the Secretary of Transportation prescribes a regulation or issues an order covering the subject matter of the State requirement.” § 20106.
2 The court further explained the purpose of the enactment of the Highway Safety Act
of 1973, § 203, which created the Federal Railway-Highway Crossings Program
(Crossings Program) at issue in the present case:
[The Crossings Program] makes funds available to States for the “cost of construction of projects for the elimination of hazards of railway-highway crossings.” § 130(a).
Shanklin, 120 S.Ct. at 1471.
The regulations implementing the Crossings Program which was
promulgated by the Secretary through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
at issue in this case are 23 C.F.R. §§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4). These regulations address
the adequacy of warning devices installed under the Crossings Program.1
At the time of the accident, the Cary Avenue crossing was equipped with
advance warning signs and an oversized stop sign. The plaintiffs assert that this
signage was inadequate and brought personal injury claims based on Louisiana law.
1 Sections 646.214(b)(3) and (4) provide in full:
(3)(I) Adequate warning devices, under § 646.214(b)(2) or on any project where Federal-aid funds participate in the installation of the devices are to include automatic gates with flashing light signals when one or more of the following conditions exist:
(A) Multiple main line railroad tracks.
(B) Multiple tracks at or in the vicinity of the crossing which may be occupied by a train or locomotive so as to obscure the movement of another train approaching the crossing.
(C) High Speed train operation combined with limited sight distance at either single or multiple track crossings.
(D) A combination of high speeds and moderately high volumes of highway and railroad traffic.
(E) Either a high volume or vehicular traffic, high number of train movements, substantial numbers of schoolbuses or trucks carrying hazardous materials, unusually restricted sight distance, continuing accident occurrences, or any combination of these conditions.
(F) A diagnostic team recommends them.
(ii) In Individual cases where a diagnostic team justifies that gates are not appropriate, FHWA may find that the above requirements are not applicable.
(4) For crossings where the requirements of § 646.214(b)(3) are not applicable, the type of warning device to be installed, whether the determination is made by a State regulatory agency, State highway agency, and/or the railroad, is subject to the approval of FHWA.
3 Union Pacific urges that the plaintiffs’ state law claims are preempted. The Shanklin
decision dealt with the State of Tennessee’s installation of warning devices at a
railroad crossing and preemption of state law. The Supreme Court concluded:
Sections 646.214(b)(3) and (4) “cover the subject matter” of the adequacy of warning devices installed with the participation of federal funds. As a result, the FRSA pre-empts respondent’s state tort claim that the advance warning signs and reflectorized crossbucks installed at the . . . crossing were inadequate. Because the TDOT used federal funds for the signs’ installation, §§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4) governed the selection and installation of the devices. And because the TDOT determined that warning devices other than automatic gates and flashing lights were appropriate, its decision was subject to the approval of the FHWA. Once the FHWA approved the project and the signs were installed using federal funds, the federal standard for adequacy displaced Tennessee . . . law addressing the same subject, thereby pre-empting respondent’s claim.
Shanklin, 120 S.Ct. at 1477 (emphasis added).
Guided by the above principles, it is clear that if federal funds were used
to install warning devices at the Cary Avenue crossing, then §§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4)
governed the selection of those devices. Thus, state laws regarding the adequacy of
those devices are preempted by federal law. In the present case, since the warning
devices, other than automatic gates and flashing lights, were present at the Cary
Avenue crossing, approval of the project by the FHWA was necessary and “[o]nce the
FHWA approved the project and the warning signs were installed with federal funds,
the federal standard for adequacy displaced [Louisiana law] addressing the same
subject, thereby preempting [Plaintiffs’] claim.” Shanklin, 120 S.Ct. at 1477. Thus,
in this case, it is not the mere source of funding of a crossing project that is the
determinant of whether state law is preempted by federal regulations regarding the
adequacy of railroad crossing warning devices; rather, it is also whether the warning
4 signs used were approved by the FHWA. With this in mind, we turn our attention to
whether the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was proper.
Summary Judgment
In Louisiana, summary judgment is now favored and it shall be used to
secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of all actions, except those
specifically excluded in La.Code Civ.P. art. 969. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(A)(2). A
summary judgment shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, interrogatory
responses, and admissions, together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine
issue of material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(B). Material facts are those that have the potential to insure
or preclude recovery, affect a litigant’s ultimate success, or determine the outcome of
a legal dispute. Rambo v. Walker, 96-2538 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/7/97), 704 So.2d 30.
Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo applying the same criteria as the
trial court to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate. Schroeder v. Bd.
of Sup’rs, 591 So.2d 342 (La.1991).
Despite the legislative mandate now favoring summary judgments,
“factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor
of the party opposing the motion, all allegations of the party opposing the motion must
be taken as true, and all doubt must be resolved in his favor.” Independent Fire Ins.
Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181, 99-2257, pp. 16-17 (La. 2/29/00), 755 So.2d 226,
236. Therefore, the party moving for summary judgment has the burden of
affirmatively showing absence of genuine issue of material fact and any doubt as to
whether the moving party has met that burden should be resolved against granting the
motion. Bradford v. Louisiana Downs, Inc., 606 So.2d 1370 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1992).
Thus, according to the prior jurisprudence of this court and of others, summary
5 judgment is not appropriate in cases where questions of subjective facts such as
motive, intent, malice, good faith and/or knowledge will determine the outcome. Nor
does the likelihood that a party will prevail on the merits constitute a basis for
granting a motion for summary judgment. Claiborne v. Conagra, Inc., 96-482
(La.App. 3 Cir. 10/30/96), 682 So.2d 851.
A hearing was held regarding Union Pacific’s federal preemption claim
at which both Union Pacific and the plaintiffs presented exhibits. Following a review
of the exhibits, the trial court determined that Union Pacific proved the expenditure
of federal funds at the Cary Avenue crossing so as to support a claim of federal
preemption. We disagree with the trial court’s conclusions.
The principles of summary judgment are clear that the burden to prove
the non-existence of material factual issues is on the party moving for summary
judgment. In this case, it is Union Pacific. To support its motion, Union Pacific
presented voluminous documents from the files of the Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development (DOTD) as well as the affidavit of Lester LeBlanc,
a District Construction Engineer in the DOTD’s district 07 office. A thorough review
of the DOTD documents reveals merely that a federal grant to fund the Cary Avenue
crossing project was submitted. Although the affidavit of Lester LeBlanc states that
the Cary Avenue crossing project was implemented “pursuant to and as part of the
Federal Railroad Safety Program,” there is nothing to show that any federal money
was used to install warning devices specifically at the Cary Avenue crossing. Further,
the documents do not reveal whether the warning devices used at the Cary Avenue
crossing, project number 737-04-14, were ever approved by the federal government
pursuant to its Crossings Program. Thus, even if during the installation of the warning
devices at the Cary Avenue crossing a federal funds grant was under consideration,
6 it is unclear from the evidence presented whether any federal funds were utilized to
pay for the work done at that particular crossing.
Shanklin makes it clear that state tort claims are preempted when warning
devices at railroad crossings are installed with the participation of federal funds and,
in some instances, the approval of the FHWA. However, the evidence presented by
the defendants does not support an unequivocal conclusion that the warning devices
used at the Cary Avenue crossing in Jennings, Louisiana was installed with federal
funds or approved by the FHWA. In the absence of such proof, we cannot say that the
plaintiffs’ state law negligence claims are preempted by federal law at this juncture
of the proceedings. Summary judgment was, therefore, inappropriately granted.
23 U.S.C.A. § 409 Privilege
Although we have determined that the trial court erred in granting Union
Pacific’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiffs’ state law
claims are preempted by federal law, we will address the plaintiffs’ argument that the
documents used by Union Pacific to support its motion should not have been
considered by the trial court pursuant to 23 U.S.C.A. § 409. That statute provides:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of . . . railway-highway crossings, . . . or for the purpose of developing any highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceedings or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.
In Palacios v. Louisiana & Delta R.R. Inc., 98-2932, p. 6 (La. 7/2/99), 740 So.2d 95,
98, the Louisiana State Supreme Court explained:
7 [C]ourts throughout the nation have surmised that section 409 was enacted to encourage active evaluation of highway and railway safety hazards. We have previously held that, by enacting section 409, Congress intended to “[f]oster the free flow of safety-related information by precluding the possibility that such information later would be admissible in civil suits. The interest to be served by such legislation is to obtain information with regard to the safety of roadways free from the fear of future tort actions.” Reichert, p. 4, [96-1419 (La. 5/20/97), 694 So.2d 193] 694 So.2d at 197, quoting Perkins v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 65 Ohio App.3d 487, 584 N.E.2d 794 (1989). See also, Fry v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 30,540 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/24/98), 715 So.2d 632. The statute serves to “facilitate candor in administrative evaluations of highway safety hazards.” Stephens v. Town of Jonesboro, 25,715, p. 6-7 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/19/94), 642 So.2d 274, 279, quoting Robertson v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 954 F.2d 1433, 1435 (8th Cir.1992) and Duncan v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 790 P.2d 595, 597 (Utah Ct.App.1990), aff'd 842 P.2d 832 (Utah 1992). Additionally, the statute has been considered to prohibit the use of federally required record-keeping from being used as a tool in private litigation. Stephens, supra citing Robertson, supra. See also, Harrison v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 965 F.2d 155, 156 n. 3 (7th Cir.1992); Light v. State, 149 Misc.2d 75, 560 N.Y.S.2d 962, 965 (N.Y.Ct.Cl.1990); and Taylor v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co., 746 F.Supp. 50, 54 (D. Kan. 1990).
In Kitts v. Norfolk & Western Railroad Co., 152 F.R.D. 78 (S.D. W.Va.
1993), the court faced the issue of whether 23 U.S.C.A. § 409 should be liberally or
strictly construed. After stating the general principle that “the public . . . has a right
to every man’s evidence, except for those persons protected by a constitutional,
common-law, or statutory privilege,” Kitts, 152 F.R.D. at 80, quoting, United States
v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709, 94 S.Ct. 3090 (1974), the Kitts court concluded that
because 23 U.S.C.A. § 409 deprives factfinders of some relevant evidence, it should
be strictly construed to accord protection for documents and data prepared for safety
purposes. However, a strict construction interpretation should not apply to documents
compiled for some other purpose, even if the contents of those other documents
become a part of a safety enhancement program or project.
8 The reasoning expressed in Kitts reveals that it is the purpose for which
the documents were compiled and/or prepared that determines whether the privilege
of 23 U.S.C.A. § 409 attaches to those documents. In Shanklin, the introduction of
the documents, similar to those in the present case were not barred from discovery or
admission by the provisions of Section 409 because those documents were compiled
or collected for the purpose of obtaining approval from the Secretary of
Transportation of particular warning devices at the crossing as opposed to safety
enhancement purposes. The Palacios court set out four criteria for determining when
the protection offered by Section 409 will apply to certain documents:
(1) reports, surveys, schedules, lists or data,
(2) compiled or collected,
(3) for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of . . . railway-highway crossings,
(4) pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 130.
Palacios, 740 So.2d at 99. Thus, as it pertains to the present case, if any of these four
factors are absent, the protections afforded by Section 409 are inapplicable regardless
of whether it is the defendant or plaintiff who wishes to use the documents.
Factor number three is relevant here. If the documents were compiled
or collected for the purpose of obtaining approval of the crossing project at the Cary
Avenue crossing, then the documents are not protected from discovery or admission
into evidence by Section 409. However, if the documents were compiled or collected
for safety enhancement purposes, Section 409 protects its discovery and admission.
In the present case, it appears that the documents were compiled and used by Union
Pacific to show compliance with 23 C.F.R. §§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4). Thus, we cannot
say that the trial court improperly allowed Union Pacific to use the documents to
support its summary judgment motion.
9 IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the judgment of the trial court granting Union
Pacific’s motion for summary judgment and motion in limine is reversed and set aside.
Costs of this appeal are assessed to the defendant, Union Pacific.
REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED
FOR TRIAL ON THE MERITS.