 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Scheiding v. General Motors Corp.8/3/1998
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
(San Francisco County Superior Court Nos. 964534, 964765, 964349, 957535, 964764)
Introduction
In five related appeals, former railroad workers, their spouses and survivors seek to overturn judgments dismissing their various tort actions against locomotive manufacturer General Motors Corp. (hereinafter GMC) for asbestos-related injuries. These dismissals followed the superior court's grant of judgment on the pleadings in four of the actions and grant of summary judgment in favor of GMC on the fifth, all on the grounds of federal preemption of the state court causes of action by the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act (hereinafter referred to as the BIA, formerly 45 U.S.C. §§ 22-34, now recodified in the Transportation Code, 49 U.S.C. § 20701 et seq.).
The question here is whether the federal BIA preempts state tort actions against the designer and manufacturer of locomotives for injuries suffered by railroad employees resulting from exposure to asbestos containing materials in those locomotives. More than 70 years ago, the United States Supreme Court in Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line. (1926) 272 U.S. 605, addressed the question of the preemptive scope of the BIA. Nevertheless, the question is closer than may at first appear. Our analysis is assisted by the presence of two thoughtful and well reasoned recent cases: Law v. General Motors Corp. (9th Cir. 1997) 114 F.3d 908 and Viad Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 330. Both cases address the scope of BIA preemption of state law claims including, among others, strict product liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. The two cases reach diametrically opposing conclusions.
We are convinced that Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line., supra, 272 U.S. 605, which specifically addressed the scope and effect of the BIA, continues to control. Consequently, we conclude that the BIA occupies the field of locomotive equipment design, manufacture and materials, preempting all state law claims within that field. We shall affirm the judgment.
Factual and Procedural Background
GMC, through its Electro-Motive Division, is a manufacturer of diesel electric locomotives. These are powered in part by diesel engines which burn diesel fuel. These engines contain some asbestos materials.
Harry Goodyear, Victor Hellquist, Robert Scheiding, Gaylord Blackburn and Billy Umphriss worked in or around locomotives at some time between the 1940's and the 1980's. Plaintiffs in each of these five actions alleged below that GMC's locomotives and related equipment were defective because they released asbestos fibers into the atmosphere where these railroad employees worked and onto their clothing. Goodyear and Hellquist are wrongful death and survival lawsuits brought by the spouses of workers who died as a result of asbestos illnesses. Scheiding, Blackburn and Umphriss were filed by the injured employees themselves. The complaints in each case allege against GMC causes of action for negligence, strict liability, and false representation, as well as wrongful death and survival in Goodyear and Hellquist and negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium in Scheiding, Blackburn and Umphriss.
GMC moved for summary judgment in each of the five cases on the grounds that the BIA preempted the strict product liability and other state common law claims. The San Francisco Superior Court treated four of these motions as motions for judgment on the pleadings, granting them without leave to amend. In Umphriss the court granted summary judgment in favor of GMC on preemption grounds.
On August 30, 1996, judgment was entered in fa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|