Cheryl Turgeon, et al. v. P Trinity Industries, Inc., et al.

2018 DNH 179

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: January 18, 2000
• Docket: 15-cv-288-PB
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Cheryl Turgeon, et al.

v. Case No. 15-cv-288-PB Opinion No. 2018 DNH 179 P Trinity Industries, Inc., et al.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

I must determine in this case whether federal common law

should shield a state government contractor from product

liability claims if the federal government has reimbursed the

state for some or all of the cost of the product that gave rise

to the claims.

Cheryl Turgeon was injured when the car she was driving

struck a guardrail end terminal manufactured by Trinity

Industries, Inc (“Trinity”). A contractor working for the State

of New Hampshire purchased the end terminal from Trinity and

installed it on a roadway that is a part of the National Highway

System. The federal government ultimately reimbursed the State

for the cost of the end terminal pursuant to a program that

covers improvements to the National Highway System.

Turgeon and her husband later sued Trinity to recover for

their injuries. Trinity responded with a motion for summary

judgment arguing that the federal government contractor defense recognized in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500

(1988) should be extended to cover the Turgeons’ claims because

the federal government reimbursed the State for the cost of the

end terminal. I decline Trinity’s invitation to extend the

federal contractor defense to claims against state contractors.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 17, 2014, at approximately 10:35 A.M., Cheryl

Turgeon was driving alone in her 2013 Dodge Durango, southbound

on New Hampshire Route 9 (“NH Route 9”) in Stoddard, NH. For

reasons that are not specified in the record, her car drifted to

the right, exited the single-lane roadway, and struck head-on

the flat, steel face of a guardrail end terminal head-on.

Instead of safely absorbing and dissipating her car’s energy, as

the device was designed to do, the end terminal allegedly

malfunctioned and “jammed” at a critical point shortly after

impact. Turgeon alleges that the jam was caused by several

defectively designed components of the model at issue. The jam,

in turn, triggered a rapid chain of events that ultimately

resulted in the impalement of the vehicle’s driver’s side

compartment by a jagged piece of folded guardrail. Turgeon’s

legs were severely injured in the process. She now claims that

2 the accident would not have unfolded as it did had the end

terminal been safely designed and tested. 1

Trinity manufactured and sold the end terminal at issue

under the “ET-Plus” brand name. It was installed at the

direction of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (“NH

DOT”) by a private contractor. Prior to the sale of the

terminal in 2006, Trinity had sought and obtained an “approval

letter” for the terminal from the Federal Highway Administration

(“FHWA”). The approval letter signified that the FHWA had

reviewed certain design specifications and crash-test reports

submitted to it by Trinity, and determined that the ET-Plus was

sufficiently “crashworthy” under relevant federal testing

standards. As such, the FHWA deemed the ET-Plus “eligible” for

federal reimbursement under the Federal-Aid Highway Program

(“FAHP”). This meant that, pending further project approval,

the NH DOT could have sought federal funding to help pay for the

purchase and installation of ET-Plus terminals on NH Route 9

where the accident occurred.

Trinity contends that the FHWA’s continued approval of the

ET-Plus under the FAHP constitutes sufficient federal

involvement to entitle it to the federal government contactor

defense recognized in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487

1 Mr. Turgeon seeks damages for loss of consortium owing to his wife’s injuries.

3 U.S. 500 (1988). It argues that the FHWA’s review and approval

of the device through correspondence with Trinity conclusively

establishes the elements of the defense as outlined in Boyle,

and therefore entitles it to summary judgment on all of the

Turgeons’ claims. Before addressing Trinity’s argument, I first

describe the design and relevant mechanics of the ET-Plus and

the FHWA’s role in administering the FAHP. I then explain the

federally accepted testing standards used to assess the

“crashworthiness” of equipment like the ET-Plus, and the FHWA’s

“approval” process for establishing reimbursement eligibility

for such devices. Lastly, I discuss the FHWA’s review of the

ET-Plus and the specific design defects alleged by Turgeon in

greater detail.

A. The ET-Plus & the Federal Highway Administration

1. The ET-Plus

The ET-Plus is an energy-absorbing guardrail terminal

system installed on the exposed ends of “W-beam” roadway

guardrails. The model is widely used on roadways throughout the

country. Its general purpose is to mitigate the risks

historically implicated when an automobile collides with the end

of an exposed or buried guardrail. Generally, it does so by

absorbing a vehicle’s energy upon impact and dissipating it down

the length of the guardrail. Made of steel, the terminal

consists of four basic parts: (i) the strike plate, (ii) the

4 impact head, (iii) the extruder throat, and (iv) the feeder

channel or “channel chute.” See Apps. A & B. The strike plate

is a flat, rectangular surface, with outward protruding edges

along its vertical sides, known as “teeth.” It is attached to,

and reinforced by, an asymmetrical, quadrilateral-shaped block

known as the “terminal head.” The head tapers back from the

plate and attaches to the “extruder throat,” which in turn

attaches to the “feeder channel.” The three-foot-long “feeder

channel” is an oblong, rectangular structure that attaches to

the front of the “W-beam” guardrail to which the entire terminal

is affixed.

In a head-on collision, the strike plate and impact head

catch the vehicle’s momentum and the entire assembly is designed

to slide down the “W-beam” barrier until the vehicle comes to a

relatively safe stop. As the terminal’s feeder channel slides

down the rail, the W-beam guardrail threads through the

terminal’s extruder throat. The throat flattens the guardrail

out of its W-shape and passes it through a curved “exit gap” in

the terminal head, pushing or “extruding” it out and away off

the side of the road. The process produces a curled ribbon of

steel that squeezes out through the exit gap of the terminal

5 alongside the edge of the roadway as the vehicle decelerates to

a stop. 2

The ET-Plus is the latest model of end terminals

manufactured and sold by Trinity. It was preceded by the “ET-

2000.” See Apps. C & D. Both models function in the same

general manner. See Doc. No. 46-7 at 12-19 (Expert Report of

Dr. Marthinus van Schoor, Dec. 8, 2017). The ET-2000 was

designed and developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute

(“TTI”) at Texas A&M University in the late 1980s and was

manufactured and sold by Trinity from 1992 to 2004 pursuant to

an exclusive licensing agreement with TTI. Doc. No. 46-8 at 28-

33 (Dep. Of Brian Smith, Feb. 22, 2018). In 1999, TTI began to

develop the ET-Plus. See Doc. No. 46-8 at 34, 37.

The ET-Plus was generally designed to function like the ET-

2000 and closely resembles its predecessor-model, except for

several specific design features that were modified between the

two models. The strike plate on the ET-Plus consists of a

narrower, 15-inch-wide rectangle, as compared to the ET-2000’s

20-inch-wide square plate. The newer strike plate also abandons

use of the horizontal “teeth” protruding from the top and bottom

2 When hit at a pronounced angle, the ET-Plus performs differently, bending or “gating” out of the way to allow the impacting vehicle to slow down and pass behind the guardrail. Doc. No. 32-6 at 4 (FHWA, “Guardrail 101”). See also United States ex rel. Harman v. Trinity Indus. Inc., 872 F.3d 645, 648 (5th Cir. 2017) (briefly describing the extrusion process).

6 edges of the ET-2000’s plate, leaving only vertical teeth

aligning the sides for the ET-Plus. Additionally, the shape and

position of the ET-Plus’s impact head resembles an off-centered,

asymmetrical quadrilateral favoring the side away from the road,

whereas the ET-2000’s head resembled a symmetrical triangle,

centrally aligned with the axis of the feeder channel. See

Apps. B & D. Among other changes, the exit gap, i.e. the

available space for the flattened guardrail to slide through and

exit the terminal head, was narrowed from 1.5 inches (ET-2000)

to 1 inch (ET-Plus). See Doc. No. 46-7 at 32-34 (Dr. van Schoor

Expert Report). In 2004, the ET-Plus was further modified to

reduce the width of the feeder channel from five inches to four

inches. Doc. No. 46-8 at 82-84 (B. Smith Dep.); see Doc. No.

46-9 (Email from S. Brown to S. Malizia, Nov. 9, 2004). In all,

these changes reduced the weight of the ET-Plus by roughly 100

pounds.

Both the ET-2000 and the ET-Plus were originally designed

to be used on 27-inch-high guardrails. At some point after

September 2005, Trinity began selling a version of the ET-Plus

for use on 31-inch-high guardrails and it is that version of the

product that is at issue in this case.

2. The Federal-Aid Highway Program & the FHWA

State expenditures on end terminals like the ET-Plus are

often eligible for federal reimbursement under the FAHP, as set

7 out in 23 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. The FAHP is a “federally

assisted State program,” see 23 U.S.C. § 145, that enables

states and localities to seek and obtain federal financial

assistance for a variety of projects related to the

construction, maintenance, and operation of the National Highway

System (“NHS”). See 23 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.; City of Cleveland

v. Ohio, 508 F.3d 827, 832 (6th Cir. 2007). The NHS encompasses

a vast network of public roadways that serve broad, national

interests. See 23 U.S.C. § 103(b). This includes the majority,

if not entirety of NH Route 9. 3 See id. The FAHP is

administered by the FHWA, an agency within the U.S. Department

of Transportation. See 49 U.S.C. § 104; 49 C.F.R. §§

1.85(a)(1), 1.84. The FHWA is empowered “to prescribe and

promulgate all needful rules and regulations for the carrying

out of [the FAHP],” see 23 U.S.C. § 315; 49 C.F.R. § 1.85, but

states ultimately retain “their sovereign rights . . . to

determine which projects shall be federally financed.” 23

U.S.C. § 145(a); City of Cleveland, 508 F.3d at 832. To avail

itself of federal assistance, each state must at least maintain

a transportation department (“State DOT”) capable of performing

certain functions. 23 U.S.C. § 302 (West 2018); see 23 C.F.R. §

3 See also Fed. Highway Admin., National Highway System: NHS Map of New Hampshire (April 22, 2015), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_ma ps/new_hampshire/nh_newhampshire.pdf.

8 1.3. The FHWA oversees certain activities of State DOTs

electing to participate in the program, and it ultimately

authorizes federal reimbursements by ensuring that projects

seeking assistance comply with relevant federal law. See Lathan

v. Brinegar, 506 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 1974) (“[P]rimary

responsibility for highway planning, design and construction

rests on state highway departments, aided by federal

assistance.”). It may withhold distribution of FAHP funds for

“any cost which is not incurred in conformity with . . . [its]

regulations . . . policies [or] procedures.” 23 C.F.R. § 1.9;

see 23 U.S.C. § 315 (conferring rulemaking authority “needful .

. . for the carrying out of the provisions of [Title 23]”); 23

C.F.R. §§ 1.32 (FHWA authority to issue directives), 1.36 (FHWA

authority to withhold federal funds).

The funding process is rather complex and generally occurs

through several stages of federal approval. State of La. ex

rel. Guste v. Brinegar, 388 F. Supp. 1319, 1321 (D. D.C. 1975).

First, specific sums of money are authorized by Congress to be

appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund each fiscal year and

made available to the FHWA for administrative expenses. See 23

U.S.C. § 104(a)(1). The FHWA is statutorily directed to

distribute a “base apportionment” from that amount to each state

in accordance with a statutory formula. See id. § 104(b),(c);

49 C.F.R. § 1.85 (delegating Secretary’s authority). Other

9 statutory provisions then dictate how that apportionment must be

distributed among six component programs within the FAHP. See

23 U.S.C. § 104. 4 Specifically, they prescribe the priority of

distribution among programs, the method for calculating specific

apportionment amounts, and formulae to determine the respective

federal and state shares for any given project. See 23 U.S.C.

§§ 104 (apportionment), 120 (federal share payable).

For each proposed project seeking federal financing, the

State DOT is required to submit “to the [FHWA] for approval such

plans, specifications, and estimates . . . as the [FHWA] may

require.” id. § 106(a); see id. § 109 (charging the FHWA with

ensuring that plans and standards adequately serve their

intended purpose, and providing further instruction for their

development). The FHWA must then act on that submission, and

the two entities enter into a “project agreement . . .

formalizing the conditions of the project approval.” id. §

106(b). Such project agreements are required before payment to

states can be made. See id. § 121. The execution of a project

agreement is “deemed a contractual obligation of the Federal

4 These programs include (i) the national highway performance program, (ii) the surface transportation block grant program, (iii) the highway safety improvement program, (iv) the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program, (v) the national highway freight program, and (v) metropolitan planning program outlined in 23 U.S.C. § 134. See 23 U.S.C. § 104(b).

10 Government for the payment of the Federal share of the cost of

the project.” id. § 106(c); see also 23 C.F.R. §§ 630.102-

630.112 (FHWA regulations pertaining to project agreements).

It is uncontested that the NH DOT’s installation of

guardrail end terminals on NH Route 9 generally would have been

an “eligible project” for federal funding. Federal funds would

not be committed to such a project, however, until the FHWA

approved relevant “plans, specifications, and estimates” and the

two government entities executed a “project agreement” pursuant

to 23 U.S.C. § 106. See Movement Against Destruction v. Volpe,

361 F. Supp. 1360, 1380 (D. Md. 1973), judgment aff'd, 500 F.2d

29 (4th Cir. 1974) (discussing a since repealed and amended

provision of 23 U.S.C. § 105 pertaining to states’ “program[s]

for projects,” which imposed similar requirements contained in

the current regulations pertaining to statewide transportation

improvement programs (“STIP”), 23 C.F.R. § 450.200, et seq.).

In 2006, Trinity sold an unspecified number of ET-Pluses

end terminals to C.W. Sliter & Sons, a highway engineering and

construction company based in New Hampshire. C.W. Sliter &

Sons, in turn, contracted with the NH DOT to install those ET-

Pluses onto guardrail systems throughout the State, including

the portion of NH Route 9 where the accident occurred. See Doc.

No. 46-8 at 36, 140 (B. Smith Dep.). Absent from this record,

however, is any evidence of “project agreement” between the FHWA

11 and the NH DOT pertaining to these installations. Instead,

Trinity offers an “approval letter” that it received from the

FHWA on September 2, 2005, see Doc. No. 32-14 at 2 (FHWA

Approval Letter, Sept. 2, 2005) and a reaffirmance of that

approval dated June 17, 2014. See Doc. No. 32-13 at 2 (FHWA

Memorandum, June 17, 2014). Both documents reflect the FHWA’s

determination, after review of certain materials submitted by

Trinity, that the ET-Plus was crash tested in compliance with

federal testing standards and was found to be sufficiently

“crashworthy.”

B. Federal Testing Standards (NCHRP Report 350) & FHWA Approval

At all relevant times, the FHWA determined the

“crashworthiness” of highway safety products based exclusively

on the testing standards set forth in the National Cooperative

Highway Research Program’s (“NCHRP”) Report 350 (“Report 350”).

Published in 1993 by the Transportation Research Board of the

National Research Council, Report 350, by its own terms,

provides “recommended procedures for evaluating the safety

performance of various highway safety features.” See Doc. No.

46-6 at 5-7 (Report 350). End terminals, like the ET-Plus, are

one of several features covered. See id. at 27. When Report

350 was published in 1993, it purported to “represent a

comprehensive update of the procedures for safety performance

evaluation,” see id. at 6, according to the then-existing state

12 of the art. See id. at 5, 7. Its recommended “procedures are

presented in the form of guidelines that describe how a feature

should be tested and evaluated.” Id. at 11. Among other areas

covered, it prescribes optimal parameters and conditions for

testing end terminals, data acquisition requirements, evaluation

criteria, and other guidelines pertaining to test documentation,

implementation, and evaluation. See Doc. No. 46-6 at 8-10

(Report 350); see also United States ex rel. Harman v. Trinity

Indus. Inc., 872 F.3d 645, 648 (5th Cir. 2017). A more detailed

examination of its content will be discussed below.

The FHWA’s formal reliance on Report 350 grew out of the

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

(“ISTEA”). See PL 102–240, Dec.18, 1991, 105 Stat 1914. ISTEA

directed the Secretary of Transportation to “initiate a

rulemaking proceeding to revise the [FAHP] guidelines and

establish standards for installation of roadside barriers and

other safety appurtenances,” including end terminals. PL 102-

240, § 1073 (23 U.S.C. § 109 note); see id. § 1049 (directing

development of report on “crashworthiness” of such features).

Consequently, on July 16, 1993, the FHWA promulgated a final

rule adopting Report 350, which had been released that same

year, “for guidance in determining the acceptability of roadside

barriers and other safety appurtenances for use on [the NHS].”

Design Standards for Highways; Requirements for Roadside

13 Barriers and Safety Appurtenances, 58 Fed. Reg. 38,293 (Jul. 16,

1993) (codified at 23 C.F.R. Part 625). In so doing, the FHWA

“expect[ed] to advance the state-of-the-art in the evaluation

and selection of traffic barriers to the point where one

[could], with input needed from crash tests, analytically

compare the merits . . . of alternative designs for use under

specified conditions.” 58 Fed. Reg. at 38, 296. The rule

became effective on August 16, 1993, and a citation to Report

350 was thereafter added to the “Guides and References” portion

of the Code of Federal Regulations, listing the standards as

acceptable guidance. 58 Fed. Reg. at 38, 293; United States ex

rel. Harman, 872 F.3d at 654 n.31.

Following a several-year grace period, on July 25, 1997,

the FHWA issued a “policy memorandum” implementing a requirement

for compliance with Report 350 (“July 1997 Policy Memo”). 5 It

provided that, effective October 1, 1998, “all new or

replacement safety features on the NHS covered by the guidelines

in the NCHRP Report 350 . . . [and installed] by State forces .

. . are to have been tested and evaluated and found acceptable

in accordance with the guidelines [therein].” See FHWA July

1997 Policy Memo, supra note 5; Doc. No. 32-11 at 2.

5 Office of Eng’g, Fed. Highway Admin., OPI: HNG-14, Policy Memorandum on Identifying Acceptable Highway Safety Features (July 25, 1997) [hereinafter “FHWA July 1997 Policy Memo”], https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/policy/ra.htm.

14 1. Report 350

By its own terms, Report 350 “contains recommended

procedures for evaluating the safety performance of various

highway safety features.” See Doc. No. 46-6 (Report 350) at 5.

It prescribes testing conditions, evaluation criteria, and

reporting requirements to aid developers in preparing and making

safety assessments for covered products. See FHWA July 1997

Policy Memo, supra note 5. The 74-page document is subdivided

into six chapters dedicated to (i) “test parameters,” e.g.

compatible soils, vehicles, and installation details for

executing tests; (ii) “test conditions” for various types of

features; (iii) “data acquisition” in preparing reports; (iv)

testing “evaluation criteria,” i.e. “structural adequacy,

occupant risk, and post-impact vehicular trajectory”; (v) “test

documentation”; and (vi) “implementation and in-service

evaluation” for post-installation testing. See Doc. No. 46-6

(Report 350) at 8-10. Among other things, the report aims to

provide “a basis on which user agencies can formulate

performance specification for safety features.” Id. at 13. The

document summarizes its “purpose and scope” by stating the

following:

Procedures presented herein involve vehicular tests to evaluate the impact performance of permanent and temporary highway safety features. Performance is evaluated in terms of the degree of hazard to which occupants of the impacting vehicle would be exposed, the

15 structural adequacy of the safety feature, the hazard to workers and pedestrians that may be behind a barrier or in the path of debris resulting from impact with a safety feature, and the post impact behavior of the test vehicle. Other factors that should be evaluated in the design of a safety feature, such as aesthetics, costs (initial and maintenance), and durability (ability to withstand environmental conditions such as freezing and thawing, wind-induced fatigue loading, effects of moisture, ultraviolet radiation, etc.) are not addressed. Doc. No. 46-6 at 13 (Report 350). In other words, the report is

concerned with testing standards rather than design standards or

specifications. 6

Report 350 outlines ten different types of tests for end

terminals that are “designed to evaluate one or more of [three]

principal performance factors: structural adequacy, occupant

risk, and post-impact behavior of [the] vehicle.” Doc. No. 46-6

at 25 (Report 350). The guidelines also envision three

different “Test Levels” at which individual tests can be

conducted. See id. at 29-31 & Table 3.2. The different levels

correspond to different classes of roadways or areas on which a

given device may be installed, e.g. rural collector, urban

street, freeway, etc. See id. at 13, 26-31 (Table 3.1 & 3.2).

6 At all relevant times, the NH DOT also required “impact attenuation devices” installed on its roadways to be “designed to meet the requirements of . . . Report 350 at a minimum Test Level 2 or Test Level 3.” Doc. No. 32-12 at 2 (undated NH DOT “Qualified Products” document). It further prohibited devices filled with sand or water, and imposed “qualification criteria” to ensure that accepted devices are able “to stand up to the rigors of winter weather and maintenance operations.” Id.

16 The three levels differ according to “impact conditions,” i.e.

speed of the test vehicle and impact angle, and “the type of

vehicle” being used in the test, ranging from a small car to a

fully loaded truck. See id. at 13. Test Level 3, for instance,

is the level at which “most crash-tested safety features in use

on U.S. highways have been qualified.” Id. at 13. Report 350

recommends seven different tests for end terminals such as the

ET-Plus to determine crashworthiness at Test Level 3, with

variations for four of the seven that are considered “optional.”

See id. at 31; see also Doc. No. 32-14 at 3 (FHWA Approval

Letter, Sept. 2, 2005).

The parameters for each type of test are prescribed by the

report in relatively precise detail. For example, “Test 30” is

“conducted with the vehicle approaching parallel to the roadway

with the point of impact to the left or right of the vehicle’s

centerline.” See Doc. No. 46-6 at 27 (Report 350). Test 30

requires that “[t]he vehicle should be offset to the most

critical side, that is, the side which will result in the

greatest occupant risk during and subsequent to impact,” and

provides some guidance for making that determination. See Id.

at 27 (Report 350). By contrast, “Test 31” requires impact to

be “at the vehicle’s centerline.” Id. (emphasis added). Both

tests are designed to evaluate occupant risk and vehicle

trajectory criteria. See id. at 27-28. Testing at Level 3 for

17 either test requires impact to occur at a zero-degree angle

while traveling 100 km/hr, but Test 30 utilizes a “small car” as

a test vehicle whereas Test 31 utilizes a “pickup truck.” See

id. at 20 (defining 820C and 2000P vehicles), 31 (Table 3.2).

“Test 32” and “Test 33” entail the same conditions as those just

discussed but at a nominal impact angle of 15 degrees instead of

zero. Id. (Table 3.2). The six remaining tests vary in a

similar manner, testing different aspects of the terminal

feature under slightly different conditions to evaluate

different performance factors. See id. at 27-29.

2. FHWA “Acceptance/ Eligibility Letters”

Since as early as 1997, it has been the practice of the

FHWA, “[a]s a service to . . . state and local highway agencies,

and industry,” to “review crash test reports and other

supporting documentation” submitted by developers and issue

“acceptance letters to developers of crashworthy hardware.” See

FHWA July 1997 Policy Memo, supra note 5 (Attachment); Doc. No.

32-11 at 4. Pursuant to that service, the July 1997 Policy Memo

attached “Submission Guidelines” for the purpose of “better

describe[ing] what must be submitted by those wishing to take

advantage of [the FHWA’s] service.” Doc. No. 32-11 at 3 (July

1997 Policy Memo). The FHWA does not conduct testing itself,

rather it requires developers to contract with a testing agency

to conduct the testing, prepare a report, and submit the results

18 to the FHWA along with other documentation specified in the

Submission Guidelines. Id. at 4.

The Submission Guidelines provide minimum testing

requirements with cross references to Report 350; an overview of

acceptable approaches to crash testing specific features,

including end terminals; and more detailed “submission

requirements,” outlining what specific materials must be

submitted to obtain an acceptance letter. See Doc. No. 32-11 at

4-12 (July 1997 Policy Memo). The document states that an

acceptance letter will issue if “the testing and performance of

the feature are acceptable[,] and sufficient detail on the

design and operation of the device are provided.” Id. at 4. It

explains, however, that acceptance letters are “not a

requirement . . . for crashworthy devices to be used on the

NHS.” Id. It further states that, as long as a device has been

“tested and evaluated” in accordance with Report 350, “and the

results are satisfactory,” a state may accept that device for

use on the NHS with the concurrence of its FHWA field division.

Id. at 5. Conversely, it explains, an acceptance letter “does

not ensure acceptance or use by various state highway agencies.”

Id. The document acknowledges that state agencies “may reject a

design or place limitations on its use for a variety of reasons—

placing their own interpretation on test results, requiring

additional testing, or requiring in-service evaluation.” Id.

19 To obtain an acceptance letter, an application must “fully

identify”:

(i) “the feature(s) tested”;

(ii) “the conditions and results of the testing,” prepared in accordance with Report 350;

(iii) the complete design, construction, installation details, and specifications for the versions of the feature for which acceptance is being sought;

(iv) “a VHS cassette video of the full sequence of tests”; and

(v) the “material and installation specifications for the proposed production model of the feature.”

Id. at 10-11. As to the design of the feature, the guidelines

further explain that a developer must submit “high quality,

reproducible, letter-size, engineering [drawings] showing all

pertinent details and installation requirements,” and should

also provide “[d]escriptions and material specifications for all

components, including fastening hardware.” Id. The July 1997

Policy Memo and Submission Guidelines remained fully in effect

until January 2011, and partially in effect until November 2015. 7

7 See Fed. Highway Admin., Memorandum on Federal-aid Reimbursement Eligibility Process For Safety Hardware Devices (Nov. 12. 2015) [hereinafter FHWA Memo, Nov. 2015], https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/countermeasures/reduce_ crash_severity/policy_memo/memo111215/.

20 3. Trinity’s Acceptance Letters

Trinity presents two documents from the FHWA that reflect

the agency’s approval of the ET-Plus for FAHP eligibility. The

first, dated September 2, 2005, is an official approval letter

accepting the ET-Plus for use on the NHS with then-newly

developed 31-inch-high guardrails, as it had previously been

approved for use with only 27-inch-high guardrails. 8 See Doc.

No. 32-14 at 2 (FHWA Approval Letter, Sept. 2, 2005). The

letter explains that although “Report 350 requires up to seven

crash tests to determine the adequacy of a traffic barrier

terminal at [Test Level 3],” the FHWA found only two tests to be

necessary to assess the crashworthiness of the device with the

newly raised guardrails. Id. at 3. This was based on its

8 Trinity received an approval letter for the earlier version of the ET-Plus that was compatible with 27-inch guardrails on January 18, 2000. See Letter from Dwight A. Home, Director, Office of Highway Safety Infrastructure, FHWA, to Dr. Hayes E. Ross Jr., Professor and Research Eng’r, Texas Transportation Institute (Jan. 18, 2000) [hereinafter Acceptance Letter CC-12g] https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/countermeasures/reduce_ crash_severity/barriers/pdf/cc-12g.pdf. Although neither party cited to the January 2000 letter in their briefs, the letter is available in the public record, as acceptance letter CC12g. It states that the FHWA approved the ET-Plus to be used “in lieu of the original ET-2000 extruder head on any of the ET-2000 systems previously accepted for use on the [NHS].” Id. The letter attaches design specifications, prepared and submitted by Trinity, comparing specific features of the new ET-Plus with the predecessor ET-2000, and a lone crash report for Test 31 conducted at Level 3 (centerline impact, zero angle, pickup truck). Id.

21 estimation that the original design of the ET-Plus, built for

use with 27-inch guardrails, had “proven to be crashworthy,” and

only two tests were likely to be affected by the modifications

related to accommodating the higher guardrails. Id. 9 The two

tests conducted in May 2005 and reviewed by the FHWA were Test

3-30 and Test 3-35. The former involves a “head-on” collision

with a 820-kg car and the latter involves a “20-degree impact

[collision] with [a] pickup truck at post 3,” i.e. the side of

the guardrail just past the end of the terminal. Id. at 2-3;

see also 46-6 at 27-29 (Report 350) (describing tests).

Relevant here, Test 3-30 is “intended primarily to evaluate

occupant risk and vehicle trajectory criteria” as a “vehicle

approach[es] parallel to the roadway, with impact to the left or

right of the vehicle’s centerline.” See Doc. 46-6 at 27. The

test report attached to the approval letter indicates that the

Test 3-30 vehicle impacted the terminal at a 0.5 degree angle

while travelling at 63.25 mph. See Doc. No. 32-14 at 7 (FHWA

Approval Letter, Sept. 2, 2005). Furthermore, the letter

9 Such “abbreviated or unique qualification procedures” appear consistent with the July 1997 Policy Memo. See Doc. No. 32-11 at 4. As the Memo explains, some features, “by their nature, are nearly certain to be safe and others that are so similar to currently accepted features that there is little doubt that they would perform acceptably.” See Doc. No. 32-11 at 4. The September 2005 Approval letter implies that the modified ET-Plus was such a device given the acceptance of its similarly designed predecessor models.

22 attaches three engineering drawings submitted by Trinity. See

id. at 5-6. One drawing depicts the ET-Plus in full, affixed to

a W-beam guardrail, with one view from the top and one from the

side. Id. at 4. The other two drawings depict a 31-inch-high

guardrail post on which the device was then tested, with one

providing a vertical cross section, and the other providing a

profile view with relevant measurements. Id. at 5-6.

The second document is an FHWA memorandum issued June 17,

2014 (“June 2014 Memorandum”), which reaffirms that the ET-Plus

in question became eligible for reimbursement under the FAHP on

September 2, 2005, and remained eligible at all times

thereafter. See Doc. No. 32-13 at 2 (FHWA Memorandum, June 17,

2014). The FHWA issued the memorandum following “reexamination

of the documentation from [the] ET-Plus crash tests” submitted

in connection with the September 2005 approval. Id. As the

memorandum suggests, this reexamination was initially prompted

in January 2012 when a former Trinity competitor, Joshua Harman,

presented allegations to the FHWA that Trinity had failed to

disclose certain modifications to the ET-Plus prior to its

eligibility approval in 2005. 10 Doc. No. 32-13 at 2 (FHWA

10A few months after Harman presented his allegations to the FHWA, he filed a False Claims Act (“FCA”) suit against Trinity in federal district court in Texas, alleging that Trinity had falsely certified to states that the modified ET-Plus designed for 31-inch guardrails complied with FHWA testing requirements, which in turn caused the states to submit false claims for

23 Memorandum, June 17, 2014). His principal claim, and the sole

allegation addressed in the FHWA’s memorandum, was “that the ET-

Plus crash tests presented to the FHWA in 2005 did not document

a dimensional change to the guide channels of 5 inches to 4

inches.” Doc. No. 32-13 at 2 (FHWA Memorandum, June 17, 2014).

The June 2014 Memorandum explains that, in response, the FHWA

confirmed with Trinity that the detail had been “inadvertently

omitted” from the documentation submitted in 2005, reexamined

the crash test reports, and “validated that the ET-Plus with the

4-inch guide channels” was indeed the model crash tested in May

2005 and approved for reimbursement in September 2005. Doc. No.

32-13 at 2-3 (FHWA Memorandum, June 17, 2014). Accordingly, the

FHWA announced that “an unbroken chain of eligibility for

Federal-aid reimbursement [had] existed since September 2,

reimbursement to the FHWA. See United States ex rel. Harman, 872 F.3d at 650, 654. The facts underlying those claims are set forth in the Fifth Circuit’s recent opinion in United States ex rel. Harman v. Trinity Industries Inc., 872 F.3d 645, 648 (5th Cir. 2017), and will not be fully recounted here. For our purposes, it is only relevant to note that the basis for Harman’s FCA claim was Trinity’s alleged failure to disclose certain modifications made during the development of the ET- Plus, including, among other things, (i) the change from a five- inch to four-inch guide-channel width, and (ii) the narrower exit gap. See id. at 649. As will be discussed, the channel width and exit gap modifications represent two of the five design features that Turgeon alleges were defective and caused her injuries. To the extent that Trinity relies on any facts discussed in the Fifth Circuit’s opinion but that do not also find support in the instant summary judgment record, I do not consider them. Therefore, the June 2014 Memorandum represents the only relevant evidence of Harman’s disclosure to the FHWA.

24 2005,” and that the modified ET-Plus continued to be eligible

through June 2014. Id.

C. Turgeon’s Claims

On July 17, 2014, Turgeon’s vehicle collided with an ET-

Plus on NH Route 9 in Stoddard, NH. According to her accident-

reconstruction expert, Turgeon’s vehicle collided with the

strike plate of the ET-Plus between the “centerline of the

vehicle and the passenger’s side frame rail” while traveling 55

miles per hour. Doc. 46-10 at 2 (Expert Report of Lawrence A.

Wilson, P.E., Dec. 7, 2017). 11 Initially, the ET-Plus functioned

appropriately, catching Turgeon’s vehicle upon impact and

dissipating its momentum as the terminal head slid down the

extruding guardrail. But then, “[a]fter the ET-Plus had

extruded approximately 14 feet of W-beam [guardrail],” the

device “jammed,” or “locked-up” somewhere in the extruder throat

or exit gap. Id. The jam prevented the guardrail from

continuing to pass through the extrusion throat, which abruptly

hindered the dissipation of the vehicle’s energy. As a result,

the guardrail began to “buckle” downstream from the vehicle,

causing it to “fold[] back onto itself forming a stiff, rigid

11The point of impact and Turgeon’s speed at the time are opinions of Turgeon’s accident reconstruction and mechanical engineering expert, Lawrence Wilson. They have been challenged by Trinity and are among a group of opinions that Trinity seeks to exclude from evidence.

25 spear” pointing into the adjacent roadway and towards Turgeon’s

careening vehicle. Id. at 39, 41; see Doc. No. 46-7 at 59 (Dr.

van Schoor Expert Report). At the same time, the jam also

caused Turgeon’s vehicle to begin to “rotate clockwise” as it

continued to move forward on a “path closely aligned with, and

parallel to, the guardrail.” See Doc. No. 46-10 at 41 (Wilson

Expert Report). The net result of the jam allegedly sent the

rotating vehicle on a collision course with the sharp,

protruding portion of the guardrail downstream. “Just before

striking the [fifth] guardrail post, the [folded] W-beam impaled

the [vehicle] in the vicinity of the rear left front wheel

well,” see id. at 42, “pierc[ing] the driver’s floor pan and

penetrat[ing] the vehicle’s occupant space.” Id. at 39. The

penetrating rail “forcibly dislodged” Turgeon’s seat “into [the]

rear occupant area,” see id. at 13, and the car came to a rest

shortly thereafter, traveling a distance of approximately 49

feet from impact to final rest. Id. at 43.

Turgeon claims that the jam that occurred in the ET-Plus’s

feeder section and resulted in her enhanced injuries was caused

by several design defects traceable to Trinity. She seeks

damages from Trinity for both negligence and strict product

liability. Her negligence theory is premised on her allegation

that Trinity failed to exercise ordinary care in the design and

testing of the ET-Plus, see Doc. No. 1-1 at 10-11 (Complaint),

26 ¶¶ 36, 41-42, and should have known that the ET-Plus was “prone

to premature rail buckling and subsequent vehicular

impalements.” See Doc. No. 44-3 at 3, 11-14 (Expert Report of

Kevin D. Schrum, Ph.D., Dec. 4, 2017). Turgeon alleges at least

five design defects to support her product liability claim.

Four of those alleged defects were first introduced in 2000,

when the ET-2000 was modified to create the ET-Plus: (i) the

narrower, rectangular strike plate (ii) the off-centered,

asymmetrical terminal head (iii) the smaller, 1-inch exit gap,

and (iv) the lighter weight of the overall terminal. See Doc.

No. 1-1 at 8-10 (Complaint); Doc. No. 46-7 at 27-28, 62-72, 93

(Dr. van Schoor Expert Report). The fifth alleged defect was

introduced in 2005, when the width of the feeder channel was

narrowed from five-inches to four. See Doc. No. 1-1 at 8-9

(Complaint); Doc. No. 46-7 at 28, 60, 93 (Dr. van Schoor Expert

Report). Turgeon alleges that each defect was a substantial

cause of either the jam or the vehicular rotation that occurred

when Turgeon’s vehicle collided with the ET-Plus’s strike plate.

See Doc. No. 1-1 at 8-11 (Complaint).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record reveals “no

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

27 56(a); Xiaoyan Tang v. Citizens Bank, N.A., 821 F. 3d 206, 215

(1st Cir. 2016). In this context, a “material fact” is one that

has the “potential to affect the outcome of the suit,” see

Cherkaoui v. City of Quincy, 877 F.3d 14, 23 (1st Cir. 2017)

(citations omitted), and a “genuine dispute” exists if a

reasonable jury could resolve the disputed fact in the

nonmovant’s favor. Ellis v. Fidelity Mgmt Trust Co., 883 F. 3d

1, 7 (1st Cir. 2018). The movant bears the initial burden of

presenting evidence that “it believes demonstrates the absence

of any genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Flovac, Inc. v. Airvac, Inc.,

817 F.3d 849, 853 (1st Cir. 2016). Once the movant has properly

carried that burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to

“designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue

for trial,” see Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324, and to

“demonstrate that a trier of fact could reasonably resolve that

issue in its favor.” Flovac, 817 F. 3d at 853 (citations

omitted); Michelson v. Digital Fin. Servs., 167 F.3d 715, 720

(1st Cir. 1999). If the nonmovant fails to adduce such evidence

on which a reasonable factfinder could base a favorable verdict,

the motion must be granted. See Flovac, 817 F. 3d at 853. In

considering the evidence presented by either party, all

reasonable inferences are to be drawn in the nonmoving party’s

28 favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249

(1986).

III. ANALYSIS

Trinity invokes the federal contractor defense recognized

in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), an

affirmative defense available under federal common law. See id.

at 514; Bailey v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 989 F.2d 794, 802

(5th Cir. 1993). When proven, the defense completely shields

federal contractors from state-tort liability arising from their

performance of federal government contracts. Although Trinity

does not claim to be a federal contractor, it argues that it is

entitled to the defense as a state government subcontractor

because the state was reimbursed by the federal government for

the end terminals it acquired from Trinity. I evaluate this

argument by first sketching out the relevant body of federal

common law recognized in Boyle. I then consider whether the

federal contractor defense should be extended to protect Trinity

from Turgeon’s claims.

A. The Federal Government Contractor Defense

The federal contractor defense was first recognized by the

Supreme Court in Boyle, where the Court held that under certain

circumstances, “a contractor providing military equipment to the

Federal Government [cannot] be held liable under state tort law

29 for injury caused by a design defect.” 487 U.S. at 502, 506,

512. The defense is a creature of “federal common law,” i.e. “a

rule of decision that amounts, not simply to an interpretation

of a federal statute or a properly promulgated administrative

rule, but, rather, to the judicial ‘creation’ of a special

federal rule of decision.” Atherton v. F.D.I.C., 519 U.S. 213,

218 (1997). As such, it evolved from the familiar, albeit

limited, principle “that a few areas, involving ‘uniquely

federal interests,’ are so committed by the Constitution and

laws of the United States to federal control that state law is

preempted and replaced, where necessary by . . . so-called

‘federal common law.’” Boyle, 487 U.S. at 504 (citing Texas

Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630, 640

(1981) and United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715,

726-29 (1979)). In recognizing this affirmative defense, the

Boyle Court was careful to note that the “displacement” of state

tort law is only justified where the imposition of liability

would “significantly conflict” with some “uniquely federal

interest.” See Boyle, 487 U.S. at 504-07; see also Texas Indus.,

Inc., 451 U.S. at 640 (creation of federal common law

appropriate when “necessary to protect uniquely federal

interests”); Wallis v. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp., 384 U.S. 63, 68-

70 (1966) (displacement of state law only appropriate where

30 there is a “significant conflict between some federal policy or

interest and the use of that state law.”).

Boyle involved a wrongful-death suit against the

manufacturer of a marine helicopter “built . . . for” the U.S.

Navy. See 487 U.S. at 502-03. The father of the helicopter’s

deceased co-pilot, who drowned in an over-water crash, faulted

the contractor for the design of the helicopter’s escape hatch,

which opened outward instead of inward and was therefore

“ineffective in a submerged craft because of water pressure.”

Id. at 502. In evaluating whether and when federal law should

protect military contractors from such liability, the Court

began its analysis by holding that the federal government had a

“uniquely federal” interest in its military procurement

contracts. See id. at 506-07. The Court reasoned that “the

civil liabilities arising out of the performance of federal

procurement contracts . . . [would] directly affect the terms of

[those] contracts . . . [and] the interests of the United

States.” Id. at 507. It explained that the risk of such

liability would cause federal contractors to either “decline to

manufacture the design specified by the Government, or . . .

raise [their] price[s].” Id. In the decades since Boyle, many

lower courts have extended the defense’s availability to also

protect nonmilitary contractors from liability arising out of

federal procurement and services contracts for civilian

31 projects. See, e.g., Carley v. Wheeled Coach, 991 F.2d 1117,

1124-25 (3d. Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 868 (1993);

(manufacturer of ambulance designed for and sold to the U.S.

General Services Administration); Andrew v. Unisys Corp., 936 F.

Supp. 821, 830 (W.D. Ok. 1996) (manufacturer of a “letter-

sorting machine designed under the authority of, and purchased

by the [U.S.] Postal Service”); Johnson v. Grumman Corp., 806

F. Supp. 212 (W.D. Wis. 1992) (manufacturer of special postal

delivery vehicles pursuant to procurement contract with U.S.

Postal Service). But see Cabalce v. Thomas E. Blanchard &

Assocs., Inc., 797 F.3d 720, 731 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2015)

(explaining that the defense is only available to federal

military contractors under Ninth Circuit caselaw).

The existence of a “uniquely federal interest,” however,

“merely establishes a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for

the displacement of state law.” Boyle, 487 U.S. at 507. A

second necessary condition is the existence of a “significant

conflict” between the application of state law and the federal

interest at issue. See id. at 507-08. In Boyle, the Court

elaborated on its conception of “conflict,” by considering a

spectrum of potential fact patterns that could present a

conflict between federal and state interests. See id. at 508-

09. At one extreme, illustrating an obvious conflict, it

pointed to the case then-before it: where the state-imposed duty

32 to design a safer escape-hatch was “precisely contrary to the

duty imposed by the Government contract,” i.e. “the duty to

manufacture and deliver helicopters with the sort of escape-

hatch mechanism shown by the specifications.” Id. at 509. At

the other extreme, to exemplify an obvious absence of conflict,

it discussed its prior decision in Miree v. DeKalb County,

Georgia, 433 U.S. 25 (1977), where the state-imposed duty was

identical to the one assumed under federal contract, i.e. where

third-party beneficiaries of a federal government contract

brought a breach-of-contract action against the federal

contractor. See Boyle, 487 U.S. at 508-09. In between these

extremes, to exemplify a less-obvious absence of conflict, the

court described a hypothetical “intermediate situation, in which

the duty sought to be imposed . . . is not identical to one

assumed under the contract but is also not contrary to any

assumed [duty].” Id. at 508-09. It stated:

If for example, the United States contracts for the purchase and installation of an air conditioning-unit, specifying the cooling capacity but not the precise manner of construction, a state law imposing upon the manufacturer of such units a duty of care to include a certain safety feature would not be a duty identical to anything promised the Government, but neither would it be contrary. The contractor could comply with both its contractual obligations and the state-prescribed duty of care. No one suggests that state law would generally be pre-empted in this context.”

33 Id. at 509. Thus, under Boyle, courts have held that “[t]he

requisite conflict exists only where a contractor cannot at the

same time comply with duties under state law and duties under

federal contract.” Barron v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 868 F.

Supp. 1203, 1207 (N.D. Cal. 1994); see Ripley v. Foster Wheeler

LLC, 841 F.3d 207, 210 (4th Cir. 2016)(same); see also Adams v.

Alliant Techsystems Inc., 201 F. Supp. 2d 700, 706-07 (W.D. Va.

2002) (no significant conflict existed between factory-workers’

negligence claim against federal ammunitions contractor for

exposure to excessive noise and the federal contractual and

regulatory obligations governing acceptable noise levels,

because contractor could have complied with both state and

federal duties).

The Court in Boyle continued to note, however, that even

where a state-imposed duty of care is precisely contrary to the

one assumed under federal contract, there is not “always a

‘significant conflict’ between the state law and a federal

policy or interest.” Boyle, 487 U.S. at 509 (emphasis added). 12

Thus, to delineate more precisely what constitutes a

“significant conflict,” the Court looked to the discretionary

12For example, no “significant conflict” would exist where a federal procurement contract provides for the purchase of a stock item available to the general public, without some indication that the federal government had a significant interest in the particular feature alleged to be defective. See Boyle, 487 U.S. at 509.

34 function exemption to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), see

id. at 511 (emphasis added) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a)),

which has long been construed to preclude tort claims

challenging federal conduct involving “the exercise of

discretion in furtherance of public policy goals.” See Evans v.

United States, 876 F.3d 375, 380-81 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting

United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 334 (1991)); see also 28

U.S.C. § 2680(a) (excepting from tort liability any claim

arising out of a federal employee’s performance or failure to

perform a “discretionary function”); Ayer v. United States, 902

F.2d 1038, 1044 (1st Cir.1990) (a discretionary function “often

involves not merely engineering analysis but judgment as to the

balancing of many technical, military, and even social

considerations, including specifically the trade-off between

greater safety and greater combat effectiveness” (quoting Boyle,

487 U.S. at 511)). The Court reasoned that, under certain

circumstances, the federal policy judgments sought to be

insulated by the exemption could just as easily be thwarted, or

“second-guess[ed],” through state tort suits against federal

contractors. See Boyle, 487 U.S. at 511-12.

The Court then crafted a three-part test designed to

determine the ultimate “scope of displacement” under the

defense. Id. It held that:

35 Liability for design defects in military equipment cannot be imposed, pursuant to state law, when (1) the United States approved reasonably precise specifications; (2) the equipment conformed to those specifications; and (3) the supplier warned the United States about the dangers in the use of the equipment that were known to the supplier but not to the United States.

Id. at 512. The Court explained that the first two of

these considerations are particularly instructive, and

“assure that the suit is within the area where the policy

of the ‘discretionary function’ would be frustrated-i.e.,

they assure that the design feature in question was

considered by a Government officer, and not merely by the

contractor itself.” Id. 13 Thus, many lower courts have

postulated that “[s]tripped to its essentials, the

[government] contractor’s defense under Boyle is to claim,

‘The Government made me do it.’” E.g., In re Hawaii Fed.

Asbestos Cases, 960 F.2d 806, 813 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting

In re Joint E. & S. Dist. N.Y. Asbestos Litig., 897 F.2d

626, 632 (2d Cir. 1990)).

B. Extending the Boyle Defense to State Contractors

Trinity concedes that it was acting as a state sub-

contractor rather than a federal contractor when it sold the

13The Court also noted that the third factor is simply necessary to eliminate any potential incentive contractors might have to withhold information regarding known risks. See Boyle, 487 U.S. at 512.

36 product at issue here. Nevertheless, it contends that the

federal contractor defense should shield it from liability on

Turgeon’s claims because the ET-Plus is generally eligible for

federal reimbursement under the FAHP. 14 To accept Trinity’s

argument requires an extension of the existing defense into an

area to which it has not heretofore been applied because, as far

as I have been able to determine, no court has yet made the

defense available to a state contractor as a matter of federal

common law. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Ali v. Daniel,

Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, 355 F.3d 1140, 1147 (9th Cir. 2004)

(“Neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit nor any other

court of which we are aware has applied the [Boyle] defense to

state contractors.”); Jones v. Houston Comm. College System, 816

14Although there is no project agreement in this record evincing the FHWA’s payment to the NH DOT for the ET-Plus in question, Turgeon does not appear to contest that the ET-Plus was at the time eligible for federal funding. See Doc. No. 46-1 at 8 (“FHWA’s role is [limited to] determining eligibility for federal funding.”). Because the parties have not produced the project agreement, however, I cannot determine how much, if any, of the NH DOT’s expenditure on the ET-Plus at issue was actually reimbursed by the FHWA. Moreover, Trinity has neglected to provide details as to which provision of Title 23 the ET-Plus was specifically eligible for reimbursement under, i.e. whether its installment called for 80 percent federal reimbursement, see 23 U.S.C. § 120(b), 100 percent, see id. § 120(c)(1), or some amount in between. Nevertheless, Turgeon does not appear to challenge Trinity’s assumption that the State’s payment for the ET-Plus at issue was at least partially reimbursed by the FHWA. For purposes of analysis, I will assume that the federal government reimbursed the state for the full cost of the end terminal that is at issue in this case.

37 F. Supp. 2d 418, 426 (S.D. Tx. 2011) (“Boyle’s reasoning does

not support extending the government-contractor defense to state

contractors.”); Smith v. Louis Berkman Co., 894 F. Supp. 1084,

1094 (W.D. Ky. 1995) (Boyle defense inapplicable where defendant

met state bid specifications for design and sale of salt-

spreader machine for State DOT, with no federal involvement);

see also City of Walker v. Louisiana, 877 F.3d 563, 569-71 (5th

Cir. 2017) (state contractor working highway construction failed

to establish government contractor defense as requisite

“colorable federal defense” for federal-officer removal

purposes, despite evidence that the state project at issue was

federally approved and funded through FAHP, because defendant

was not “operating as a federal contractor”); Jackson v. Alert

Fire & Safety Equip., Inc., 567 N.E.2d 1027, 1034 (Ohio 1991)

(Boyle defense does not apply to city contractor absent any

procurement contract with United States). Although this case

presents the issue in a somewhat different context because the

costs incurred by a state in purchasing the ET-Plus were

eligible for reimbursement under the FAHP, caution is

nevertheless warranted when considering any attempt to expand

the reach of a federal common law rule. See, e.g., Atherton,

519 U.S. at 218 (“[C]ases in which judicial creation of a

special federal rule would be justified . . . are . . . ‘few and

restricted.’” (internal cites omitted)).

38 In the sections that follow, I examine Trinity’s request to

extend the reach of the federal contractor defense. I heed

Boyle by first considering whether Trinity’s liability in this

case would “directly affect” a “uniquely federal interest.”

Although my analysis could end there, I then consider whether

Trinity has identified a “significant conflict” between the

federal interest and operation of New Hampshire tort law. See

Boyle, 487 U.S. at 507.

1. Uniquely Federal Interest

Under the framework employed in Boyle, the first step in

determining whether the federal contractor defense should extend

to state contractors who provide a product that is eligible for

federal reimbursement is to consider whether a “uniquely federal

interest” is at stake. See 487 U.S. at 504-07; see also In re

World Trade Center Disaster Site Litig., 521 F.3d 169, 196-97

(2d Cir. 2008) (applying Boyle’s rationale to determine whether

to recognize “derivative immunity” for private contractors and

state agencies under the Stafford Act for claims arising from

their assistance in disaster relief effort coordinated by

federal agencies). Trinity, who largely overlooked this

threshold matter in its briefing, suggested at oral argument that

the FHWA has a “uniquely federal interest” in ensuring the

safety of highway equipment installed on the NHS. Doc. No. 62

at 10-11 (Summ. J. Hr’g Tr., July 24, 2018). Alternatively, it

39 contended that the FHWA has such an interest in funding highway

safety projects through the FAHP. Either way, it argued that

exposing a developer like Trinity to the risk of liability

arising from the use of its products on the NHS would directly

affect those interests, because the FHWA would indirectly bear

the cost of liability judgments, i.e., state contractors will

raise their prices and the added cost will trickle down through

State DOTs to the FHWA. I am unpersuaded by these arguments for

several reasons.

First, the federal government’s asserted interest in

ensuring the safety of NHS highway products is not “unique” to

the FHWA because the State of New Hampshire has an at least

equally compelling interest in ensuring the safety of highway

equipment installed on its own roadways. The fact that some of

those roadways also comprise portions of the NHS does not

diminish that interest. Indeed, the FAHP self identifies as a

“federally assisted State program” that “shall in no way

infringe on the sovereign rights of the States to determine

which projects shall be federally financed.” 23 U.S.C. § 145

(emphasis added). Thus, the FAHP does not change the fact that

the governmental interest in maintaining safe state highways is

primarily an interest of the states. See id.; City of Walker,

877 F.3d at 570 (“[T]he federal government’s usual approach to

highway construction [is that] it approves the project and

40 provides most of the funding, but states build and own the

highway.”); Lathan, 506 F.2d at 682 (“Under the Federal-Aid

Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., primary responsibility for

highway planning, design and construction rests on state highway

departments, aided by federal assistance.” (internal citations

omitted)); see also Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 359 U.S.

520, 523 (1959) (“The power of the State to regulate the use of

its highways is broad and pervasive.”); Friends of the Earth v.

Carey, 552 F.2d 25, 38 (2d Cir. 1977) (“The regulation of

traffic on roads and highways . . . has long been considered to

be a cooperative effort between City, State and federal

authorities, with no single entity being able to provide or

impose a comprehensive traffic system, and with federal power,

where necessary, taking precedence.”).

Although the FHWA is charged with developing minimal

standards for the selection of acceptable safety devices for use

on the NHS, see 23 U.S.C. § 109, the FHWA’s enforcement

authority for noncompliance with those standards is limited to

withholding federal funding. See 23 C.F.R. §§ 1.9, 1.36

(promulgated pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 315); State of Neb., Dep’t

of Roads v. Tiemann, 510 F.2d 446, 447-48 (8th Cir. 1975)

(“While the state is constitutionally free to operate its own

highway system, the federal government is not bound

constitutionally or statutorily to grant federal highway funds

41 to states which do not operate their systems in accordance with

federal guidelines.”). Naturally, its interest in ensuring the

safety of such devices only extends to developers and State DOTs

wishing to participate in the FAHP. In the event that a state

chose to forgo federal reimbursement, nothing prohibits a

product developer from having its product purchased and used by

a State DOT that is either uninterested in federal reimbursement

for an NHS project or intends to install the device on a non-NHS

roadway. 15 See, e.g., 23 U.S.C. § 109(o) (“Projects (other than

15Although Trinity contends that compliance with Report 350 testing standards is required before a State DOT can install any end terminal “on the NHS,” see Doc. No. 62 at 13-15 (Summ. J. Hr’g Tr., July 24, 2018), it fails to provide any specific statutory or regulatory support for its contention. Instead, it can only cite to the FHWA’s July 1997 Policy Memo, which provides that “all new or replacement safety features on the NHS . . . that are included . . . in work done by force-account or by State forces on or after October 1, 1998, are to have been tested and evaluated and found acceptable in accordance with the guidelines in the NCHRP Report 350.” FHWA July 1997 Policy Memo, supra note 5; Doc. No. 32-11 at 2; Doc. No. 62 at 14 (Summ. J. Hr’g Tr., July 24, 2018). In order to read that statement as broadly as Trinity would (i.e. to encompass even those products for which a State DOT does not seek federal reimbursement), one would have to virtually ignore its regulatory context and statutory enabling source entirely. The clearest statutory authority for the policy memorandum appears to be 23 U.S.C. § 109, which authorizes the FHWA to adopt certain standards germane to “plans and specifications for each proposed highway project under this chapter.” Id.; see also 23 U.S.C. § 315 (authority to promulgate “all needful rules and regulations for carrying out of the provisions of this title”); 23 C.F.R. §§ 1.32 (authority to “require observance of policies and procedures” limiting federal participation) 1.36 (authorizing FHWA to withhold funds where State has “failed to comply with Federal laws or the regulations in this part with respect to a project.”). As an unpromulgated internal agency

42 highway projects on the [NHS]) shall be designed, operated, and

maintained in accordance with State laws, regulations,

directives, safety standards, design standards, and construction

standards.”). Cf. Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. v. Mirage

Resorts Inc., 963 F. Supp. 395, 405-06 (D. N.J. 1997) (state

agencies and developers need not comply with environmental

impact conditions of 23 U.S.C. § 109 where no federal funds had

been sought or approved for highway and tunnel construction

project linking Atlantic City Expressway, an NHS roadway, to

local road). Accordingly, compliance with Report 350 and

approval by the FHWA only ensures general reimbursement

eligibility. See FHWA July 1997 Policy Memo, supra note 5

(Attachment); Doc. No. 32-11 at 6. Actual reimbursement for the

guideline, however, it is doubtful that the FHWA’s July 1997 Policy Memo itself carries the force of law. Although I need not decide the question and decline to do so here, the policy memorandum would be entitled to deference only insofar as it has the power to persuade if a state chooses to forego federal reimbursement for a product installation on the NHS. See Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 586-87 (2000); Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944). Not only is Trinity’s interpretation contextually unpersuasive, but its implication would allow an administrative policy statement to effectively expand the scope of the statutory scheme under which it was issued from a self-proclaimed “federally assisted State program,” see 23 U.S.C. § 145, to a full-fledged regulatory regime covering any and all installations on state roadways within the NHS. The better reading of the policy is that the FHWA requires compliance with Report 350 as a condition for participation in the federal-aid program. This latter reading is both fully consistent with the statutory scheme and faithfully cognizant of our constitutional system.

43 device is ultimately contingent upon its compliance with

applicable state regulations, see 23 C.F.R. § 1.9(a), its

acceptance by the State DOT, its inclusion in a duly-executed

project agreement, and its purchase and installation by the

state. See 23 U.S.C. §§ 106, 121; FHWA July 1997 Policy Memo,

supra note 5 (Attachment); Doc. No. 32-11 at 6. (“[A]cceptance

of a design by the FHWA does not ensure acceptance or use by the

various state highway agencies. They may reject a design or

place limitations on its use for a variety of reasons . . . If,

for a particular device, it can be demonstrated to the

satisfaction of a state highway agency that [the] device has

been tested and evaluated in accordance with acceptance

procedures recognized by the FHWA, and the results are

satisfactory, that device could be accepted by that state, with

concurrence by its FHWA division office, for use on the NHS

within the state.”). In sum, the governmental interest in

testing standards for highway safety devices installed on the

NHS cannot reasonably be considered “uniquely federal” because

it is inextricably entwined with the interest of the states in

ensuring safe highways.

To the extent that Trinity asserts that cost control is a

“uniquely federal” interest, i.e., that product liability

judgments will drive up the cost of products subject to

reimbursement under the FAHP, its argument is equally

44 unavailing. Report 350 states that “costs” of a safety feature,

whether “initial or maintenance . . . are not addressed” in its

guidelines. See Doc. No. 46-6 at 13 (Report 350). Thus, in

relying exclusively on those guidelines in determining whether a

product is crashworthy and eligible for reimbursement, the FHWA

does not consider a product’s cost. And neither the report nor

the FHWA’s July 1997 Policy Memo prohibit states from setting

higher safety standards for products than Report 350 requires,

regardless of whether those higher standards increase costs.

See FHWA July 1997 Policy Memo, supra note 5 (Attachment); Doc.

No. 32-11 at 6. Clearly, the FHWA is in a better position than

a federal court to balance safety and cost considerations when

determining whether a product is eligible for reimbursement

under the FAHP. Because Congress has not instructed the FHWA to

consider a product’s cost when determining whether it is

eligible for reimbursement, it would be particularly

inappropriate for a court to conclude as a matter of federal

common law that a uniquely federal interest in cost control

requires the displacement of state tort law. See, e.g., Texas

Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630, 646-47

(1981) (Congress better positioned than federal courts to

recognize a right to contribution among antitrust wrongdoers

given the far-reaching policy implications); Museum of Fine

Arts, Bos. v. Seger-Thomschitz, 623 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2010)

45 (“Whether latent federal power should be exercised to displace

state law is primarily a decision for Congress, not the federal

courts.” (quoting Atherton, 519 U.S. at 218)).

2. Significant Conflict

Even if I were to assume that the governmental interest in

safe highways is uniquely federal, “that [would] merely

establish a necessary, not a sufficient condition for the

displacement of state law.” Boyle, 487 U.S. at 507. Here,

displacement is also unwarranted because New Hampshire tort law

does not conflict with any identifiable federal interest or

legislative objective. See id. at 507-08. Trinity’s principal

counter argument is that Turgeon’s use of state tort law amounts

to an improper attempt to “second guess” the FHWA’s approval of

and payment for the ET-Plus. See Doc. No. 32-1 at 10, 25.

Although a threat of “second guessing” federal policy decisions

has been sufficient to establish the requisite conflict in other

contexts, see, e.g., Boyle 487 U.S. at 511 (quoting United

States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797, 814 (1984)), Trinity’s

argument fails because New Hampshire’s tort law is in no way

inconsistent with the federal policy enforced by the FHWA.

Report 350, on which the FHWA based its approval of the ET-

Plus, contains only testing procedures for evaluating safety

performance. See Doc. No. 46-6 (Report 350) at 8-10. It makes

no attempt to prescribe design specifications for any particular

46 safety feature. In fact, it makes clear that “design . . .

aesthetics, costs (initial and maintenance), and durability” are

beyond the document’s purview. See Doc. No. 46-6 at 13 (Report

350). Moreover, the FHWA’s July 1997 Policy Memo and Submission

Guidelines make equally clear that, although end terminals must

be “tested, evaluated[,] and found acceptable” in accordance

with Report-350 guidelines to be eligible for federal

reimbursement, see Doc. No. 32-11 at 2, a State DOT is free to

impose more rigorous standards before purchasing and installing

any given terminal. See Doc. No. 32-11 at 5 (July 1997 Policy

Memo). Thus, as the Policy Memo recognized, if a device had

been “tested and evaluated” in accordance with Report 350, “and

the results [were] satisfactory,” a State was free to accept it

for use on its NHS roadways or reject it for whatever reason it

deemed appropriate. See Doc. No. 32-11 at 5. For example, it

could have “reject[ed] [the] design . . . place[ed] limitations

on its use . . . require[ed] additional testing, or require[d]

[additional] in-service evaluation.” See id.

Clearly, the dynamic between the respective state and

federal duties is much different from that presented in Boyle.

In Boyle, the Court determined that the state-imposed duty to

design a safer escape hatch was “precisely contrary” to the

federal “duty to manufacture and deliver helicopters with the

sort of escape-hatch mechanism shown by the [contract]

47 specifications.” See Boyle, 487 U.S. at 509. Thus, “compliance

with both federal and state mandates at once was impossible.”

See In re Joint E. & S. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 715 F. Supp.

1167, 1169 (E.D.N.Y. 1988). In reaching its conclusion that the

conflict at issue was sufficient to trigger displacement,

however, the Court also recognized that certain “intermediate

situation[s]” would not be sufficient. See Boyle, 487 U.S. at

509. To illustrate that point, Justice Scalia hypothesized a

situation in which the federal government contracts “for the

purchase and installation of an air-conditioning unit,

specifying the cooling capacity but not the precise manner of

construction.” Id. at 509. He observed that, under such

circumstances, a state-imposed duty “to include a certain safety

feature would not be a duty identical to anything promised the

Government, but neither would it be contrary.” Id.

Accordingly, he surmised, “state law would [not] generally be

preempted in [that] context.” Id.

The dynamic at issue here, between Report 350 and the

operative state duty of care, is no different from that

“intermediate situation” he discussed in Boyle. Report 350

itself does not establish maximum safety standards, and the FHWA

does not employ it for that purpose. Although the FHWA requires

a device to be tested to those standards to be eligible for

federal reimbursement, it in no way restricts a state’s ability

48 to impose more exacting standards for the testing or design of

such devices. Thus, Report 350 merely establishes a minimum,

safety-performance baseline for devices seeking FAHP

eligibility, and a device’s compliance with a higher, state-

imposed duty of care has no bearing on that federal

determination. These minimum safety-performance standards are

virtually indistinguishable from the cooling-capacity

specifications contained in the Court’s example in Boyle. See

487 U.S.at 509. Much like a federal contract “specifying the

cooling capacity but not the precise manner of construction,”

see id., Report 350 prescribes testing methods and performance

results but does not require any particular product design. In

both cases, the federal duty is exclusively concerned with

performance criteria and silent as to physical design

specifications. 16 Thus, in either case, there is no reason to

doubt that any one of innumerable product designs could achieve

the federally-prescribed performance results. 17 Therefore, the

16Although the FHWA required developers seeking eligibility approval to submit design specifications with their Report-350 crash test reports, see Doc. No. 32-11 at 10-11 (July 1997 Policy Memo), there is no evidence of any federal design criteria or specifications that were used to scrutinize those materials. The only “federal specifications” at issue here pertain to the testing procedures outlined in Report 350.

17 That is especially apparent here, where the ET-Plus was subjected to only two tests prior to seeking approval in 2005, instead of the seven recommended under Report 350. See Doc. No. 32-14 at 2 (FHWA Approval Letter, Sept. 2, 2005); supra, note 13.

49 state-imposed duty of care as to the design of the product in

either case is not “contrary” to any federally-imposed

contractual or regulatory obligation. See Boyle, 487 U.S. at

508-09. In other words, just as Boyle’s hypothetical contractor

was free to design his air-conditioner to satisfy both state and

federal duties, Trinity was free to design a reasonably safe

product and test it to Report 350 standards without encountering

a conflict with any significant federal interest.

Other courts have recognized that the absence of any

“conflict” between federal and state duties, as evidenced by a

contractor’s ability to comply with both, precludes application

of the Boyle defense. This has been particularly evident in the

failure-to-warn context. For example, in In re Joint Eastern

and Southern District Asbestos Litigation, 715 F. Supp. 1167

(E.D.N.Y. 1988), the court denied a U.S. Navy contractor’s

attempt to assert the Boyle defense in response to a failure-to-

warn claim brought by a Naval yard-worker exposed to asbestos-

containing products supplied by the defendant. Although the

contract in that case explicitly called for the use of asbestos

in the products at issue, the federal specifications did not

prohibit the contractor from including health warnings with

them. Id. at 1168. The court analogized the situation to that

hypothesized in Boyle, as discussed above, and held that the

defense was inapplicable because there was no conflict between

50 the state-imposed duty-to-warn and the federal specifications

that were silent on the matter of warnings. Id. at 1169. Many

courts have endorsed this line of reasoning in finding the

defense inapplicable to failure-to-warn claims when the federal

specifications at issue do not mandate or prohibit warnings.

See, e.g., In re Hawaii Fed. Asbestos Cases, 960 F.2d at 812-13;

Dorse v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 716 F. Supp. 589, 590-91

(S.D. Fla. 1989); see also Densberger v. United Tech. Corp, 297

F.3d 66, 75 (2d Cir. 2002) (For failure-to-warn claims, “the

government contractor defense would seem to make sense only when

the government, for reasons of federal interest, chooses to

limit the warnings provide by the seller to end-users.”);

Barron, 868 F. Supp. at 1206 (“Whether viewed as an independent

requirement or part-and-parcel of Boyle's three-part inquiry,

for the government contractor defense to apply, there must be a

significant conflict between duties under state tort law and

duties imposed by federal contract.”). Under such

circumstances, a contractor can “comply with everything

‘promised the Government’ while at the same time following the

‘state-prescribed duty of care’ to both warn [users] and to

create procedures to avoid potentially fatal exposure.” See

Epperson v. Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp., No. 05-cv-2953, 2006 WL

90070, at *4 (E.D. Va. Jan. 11, 2006) (citations omitted).

51 This principle has also been applied outside the failure-

to-warn context. For example, in Adams, 201 F. Supp. 2d 700,

former employees of a U.S. Army ammunitions plant operated by

federal contractors sought damages under Virginia tort law on

the basis of negligent exposure to excessive noise. The court

rejected the contractors’ invocation of the Boyle defense

despite evidence of federal regulatory provisions governing

“noise levels” within the plant. Id. at 705-707. Specifically,

the court considered the defendants’ assertion that, in

operating the plant, they were not “at liberty to stray” from

their contractual obligation to follow Army regulations

“mandate[ing] educational programs informing employees about

hearing loss, noise levels and preventative measures to avoid

hearing loss.” Id. at 707 n.8. The court held that the defense

was inapplicable, despite the existence of a uniquely federal

interest in Army munitions production, because the contractor

had failed to demonstrate that the state-imposed duty of care

regarding acceptable noise levels “conflict[ed] with or even

burden[ed] [its] federal regulatory or contractual obligations.”

Id. at 707.

In sum, nothing in this record would preclude a developer

like Trinity from complying with both its federal testing

obligations and its state-prescribed duty to design a reasonably

safe product. Nor can it seriously be asserted that the

52 imposition of a state-prescribed duty to refrain from the use of

unreasonably dangerous and defective products on the NHS “would

‘frustrate specific [legislative] objectives,’” see Boyle, 487

U.S. at 507 (quoting United States v. Kimbell Foods, 440 U.S.

715, 728 (1979)), in “establish[ing] standards for installation

of roadside barriers and other safety appurtenances.” See

ISTEA, PL 102-240, § 1073. Thus, the present case simply does

not present the type of significant conflict between state and

federal interests that must be present to justify the extension

of Boyle that Trinity proposes. 18

18 Trinity’s attempt to invoke the federal contractor defense fails for the reasons I have described. However, even if Trinity had sufficiently demonstrated both the requisite “uniquely federal interest” and the “conflict” necessary for the defense to apply, it has failed to establish the first prong of Boyle’s three-part test. As discussed in Boyle, once it has been established that displacement is warranted, and the defense is available, the “scope of displacement” is determined using a three-part test. See 487 U.S. at 511-12. The first part of that test requires evidence that the federal government “approved reasonably precise specifications.” Id. at 512. Because this element is designed to discover the extent of federal discretion exercised over the allegedly defective features, see Brinson v. Raytheon Co., 571 F.3d 1348, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009), the approved specifications must address the particular features at issue in reasonable detail and the government’s “approval” must follow from its “substantive review” of those specific features, rather than a “mere bureaucratic rubber stamp” of the overall product. Trevino v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 865 F.2d 1474, 1479-80, 1486 (5th Cir. 1989); see In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litig., 517 F.3d 76, 89-90 (2d. Cir. 2008). Thus, were it entitled to assert the defense to begin with, Trinity would be required to present evidence that the FHWA “actually participated in discretionary design decisions,” Harduvel v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 878 F.2d 1311, 1316 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. (1999), pertaining to the ET-Plus’s (i) narrow strike plate, (ii) asymmetrical terminal head, (iii) smaller, 1-inch exit gap, (iv) lighter weight, and (v) narrowed, four-inch guide channel. See Doc. No. 1-1 at 8-9 (Complaint); Doc. No. 46-7 at 28, 60, 93 (Dr. van Schoor Expert Report). It has simply failed to do so. As previously discussed, Report 350 does not contain reasonably precise specifications as to any covered product’s preferred design. It only contains testing and safety- performance standards. Although the FHWA required submission of design specifications in addition to Report-350 testing reports to obtain an approval letter, there is no evidence that the FHWA’s review of a device’s

53 IV. CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court has advised “judicial caution” when

considering arguments for new federal common law causes of

action. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 725-26 (2004).

Because the Court’s advice is grounded in principle rather than

mere political expediency, it must apply with at least equal

force to proposals to extend federal common law defenses. This

is particularly true in cases such as this one, where the

federal interest on which the proposed defense is based is

enforced through a legislative and regulatory program that gives

no hint to unsuspecting states that their tort laws will be

displaced if they accept an offer of federal funds. For the

reasons discussed, I decline Trinity’s invitation to extend the

federal contractor defense recognized in Boyle to state

design had any bearing on the product’s eligibility approval. Rather, agency guidance only explicitly required a device seeking reimbursement eligibility to comply with Report 350’s “test[ing]” and performance “evaluat[ion]” criteria. See Doc. No. 32-11 at 2 (July 1997 Policy Memo). Indeed, both the 2005 FHWA approval letter and the 2014 FHWA memorandum presented here by Trinity strongly suggest that the FHWA’s review of the ET-Plus, at least on a substantive level, was limited to assessing its “crashworthiness” as determined under Report-350 testing standards. Doc. No. 32-13 at 2 (FHWA June 2014 Memorandum)(“In general, FHWA’s eligibility letters confirm that roadside safety hardware was crash tested to the relevant standards, that those crash test results were presented to FHWA, and that FHWA confirmed that the device met [those] standards.”). Neither document discusses any of the allegedly defective features in sufficient detail to reflect the level of federal engagement necessary to satisfy Boyle’s first prong. Thus, a reasonable trier of fact could easily find from the evidence presented that “no more than a rubber stamp” was obtained from the FHWA with respect to the design specifications addressing the features relevant to Turgeon’s claim. See Trevino, 865 F.2d at 1479-80 (quoting Boyle, 487 U.S. at 515 (Brennan, J., dissenting); Snell v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 107 F.3d 744, 748 (9th Cir. 1997). Trinity’s motion would have therefore been denied even if the Boyle defense was available.

54 contractors under the circumstances presented by this case.

Trinity’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 32) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Paul Barbadoro__________ Paul Barbadoro United States District Judge

September 5, 2018

cc: D. Michael Noonan, Esq. Anthony Carr Esq. Stephanie K. Annunziata, Esq. Timothy John McLaughlin, Esq. Brian T. Kelly, Esq. Asha L. Spencer, Esq. Christopher Queenin, Esq. John C. Fitzpatrick, Esq. Mark Tyler Knights, Esq. David Cates, pro se

55 Appendix A

A picture of an ET-Plus end terminal installed on a W-beam guardrail of an unspecified height, taken from the expert report of Dr. Marthinus van Schoor, one of the Turgeons’ proposed expert witnesses. See Doc. No. 46-7 at 25.

Appendix B

Engineering drawings depicting the ET-Plus that are publicly available as an attachment to a letter dated January 18, 2000 from the FHWA to the Texas Transportation Institute (“TTI”). See Letter from Dwight A. Home, Director, Office of Highway Safety Infrastructure, FHWA, to Dr. Hayes E. Ross Jr., Professor

56 and Research Eng’r, Texas Transportation Institute (Jan. 18, 20000) https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/countermeasures/reduce_ crash_severity/barriers/pdf/cc-12g.pdf. The circumstances surrounding the letter are more fully discussed infra note 7.

Appendix C

A picture of an ET-2000 installed on a W-beam guardrail of an unspecified height, taken from the expert report of Dr. Marthinus van Schoor. See Doc. No. 46-7 at 16.

Appendix D

Engineering drawings depicting the ET-2000, also attached to the January 18, 2000 letter from the FHWA to TTI. See infra note 7.