Capozzi v. Blanchette

W.D. New York

Capozzi v. Blanchette

433 F. Supp. 704, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14992

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. New York

DecidedJuly 13, 1977

DocketCiv. 76-269

StatusPublished

This text of 433 F. Supp. 704 (Capozzi v. Blanchette) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Capozzi v. Blanchette, 433 F. Supp. 704, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14992 (W.D.N.Y. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ELFVIN, District Judge.

This action is before me upon my motion for plaintiffs to show cause why the fifth and sixth claims for relief should not be stricken. Plaintiff John F. Capozzi was injured while in the employ of third-party defendant Dresser Industries, Inc. The injury occurred when an allegedly defective railroad car which was sold by defendant to Dresser Industries, Inc. caused a flask to fall upon John Capozzi’s foot resulting in its amputation. The fifth claim for relief requests the recall of all similarly defective used railroad cars. The sixth claim for relief requests an injunction to prevent defendant from selling such similarly defective railroad cars in the future.

Plaintiffs do not cite any case in which such a recall and prohibition were permitted, but argue generally that such relief is appropriate. Railroad safety has been delegated by Congress to the Secretary of Transportation. 45 U.S.C. § 431. Inasmuch as Congress’s delegation of authority to the Secretary has preempted the field, injunctive relief is not a remedy available for the correction of unsafe conditions. Donelon v. New Orleans Terminal Company, 474 F.2d 1108 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 855, 94 S.Ct. 157, 38 L.Ed.2d 105 (1973).

It is therefore hereby

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ fifth and sixth claims for relief are stricken from the complaint.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ELFVIN, District Judge.

This action is before me upon my motion for plaintiffs to show cause why the fifth and sixth claims for relief should not be stricken. Plaintiff John F. Capozzi was injured while in the employ of third-party defendant Dresser Industries, Inc. The injury occurred when an allegedly defective railroad car which was sold by defendant to Dresser Industries, Inc. caused a flask to fall upon John Capozzi’s foot resulting in its amputation. The fifth claim for relief requests the recall of all similarly defective used railroad cars. The sixth claim for relief requests an injunction to prevent defendant from selling such similarly defective railroad cars in the future.

Plaintiffs do not cite any case in which such a recall and prohibition were permitted, but argue generally that such relief is appropriate. Railroad safety has been delegated by Congress to the Secretary of Transportation. 45 U.S.C. § 431. Inasmuch as Congress’s delegation of authority to the Secretary has preempted the field, injunctive relief is not a remedy available for the correction of unsafe conditions. Donelon v. New Orleans Terminal Company, 474 F.2d 1108 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 855, 94 S.Ct. 157, 38 L.Ed.2d 105 (1973).

It is therefore hereby

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ fifth and sixth claims for relief are stricken from the complaint.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

433 F. Supp. 704, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capozzi-v-blanchette-nywd-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack