Engvall v. Soo Line Railroad Company9/26/2000
Petition for review granted December 12, 2000.
JAMES J. ENGVALL, PLAINTIFF,
V.
SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, D/B/A CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF, PETITIONER, APPELLANT,
V.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, RESPONDENT
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
The Locomotive Inspection Act, codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. §§ 20701-20703 (1997), preempts state common-law claims for contribution or indemnity asserted by a railroad carrier against a locomotive manufacturer.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 975496
Eric J. Magnuson, Jeffrey R. Schmidt, Peter Gray, Rider, Bennett, Egan & Arundel, Llp, 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for appellant) David M. Heilbron, pro hac vice, Robert A. Brundage, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, Llp, Three Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA 94111; Mickey W. Greene, Lezlie Ott Marek, Hanson, Marek, Bolkcom & Greene, Ltd., 2200 Rand Tower, 527 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55402; and Thomas J. Sweeney, Mark E. Gebauer, Eckert, Seamens, Cherin & Mellott, Llc, 600 Grant Street, 42nd Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (for respondent) Glenn Olander-Quamme, Spence, Ricke, Sweeney & Gernes, P.A., Suite 600, Degree of Honor Building, 325 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and Louis P. Warchot, Daniel Saphire, Association of American Railroads Law Department, 50 F Street N.W., 12th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001 (for amicus curiae Association of American Railroads)
Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Foley, Judge.* * Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, §á10.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Willis, Judge
Affirmed
Willis, Judge
OPINION
Plaintiff sued his employer, appellant Soo Line Railroad Company, for injuries plaintiff suffered in applying a handbrake on a locomotive. Soo Line filed a third-party complaint against respondent General Motors Corporation, the manufacturer of the locomotive, seeking contribution and indemnity. The district court granted General Motors' motion for summary judgment, concluding that Soo Line's claims were preempted by the federal Locomotive Inspection Act. This court dismissed Soo Line's appeal as untimely. The supreme court granted review, reversed, and remanded for consideration on the merits. We affirm.
FACTS
Plaintiff James J. Engvall (Engvall) suffered a back injury on November 6, 1996, while, within the scope of his employment as a locomotive engineer for appellant Soo Line Railroad Company (Soo Line), he was applying, or "tying down," a handbrake on a locomotive. He brought suit against Soo Line under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (the FELA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60 (1997), and the Locomotive Inspection Act (the LIA), formerly known as the Boiler Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. §§á20701-20703 (1997). Engvall's complaint alleged that Soo Line's negligence, including its failure to inspect and maintain its equipment and its failure to instruct its employees in the proper use of the equipment, was the cause of his injury.
Soo Line filed a third-party complaint against respondent General Motors Corporation (GM), the designer and manufacturer of the locomotive, alleging that GM failed to use reasonable care in designing and manufacturing the handbrake, thereby rendering it defective a
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|