 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Engvall v. Soo Line Railroad Company8/2/2001
onsistent railroad operating standards among states. The applicable standard, as always, is the standard imposed by the LIA.
GM also relies on this court's decision in Mahutga v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Ry., 182 Minn. 362, 234 N.W. 474 (1931). In Mahutga, a brakeman claimed that he suffered a work injury as a result of the design of the side cab curtains on the locomotive on which he worked. Id. at 363, 234 N.W. at 474-75. The design of the side cab curtains had been approved by the ICC. Id. at 366, 234 N.W. at 476. In bringing his lawsuit under the FELA, the brakeman alleged that the side cab curtains violated the LIA. Id. at 363, 234 N.W. at 474.
Because the ICC had approved the design of the side cab curtains, we concluded that their use made the locomotive safe to operate without unnecessary peril to life or limb, and that " jury cannot be permitted to substitute its judgment" for that of the ICC. Id. at 366, 234 N.W. at 476. Hence, Mahutga merely establishes that, when the FRA has found a particular design of a part or appurtenance to be safe to operate as required by the LIA, a jury cannot find otherwise. Therefore, Mahutga provides no support for GM's position unless the FRA has in fact found the particular design of the handbrake at issue to be safe to operate under the LIA.
GM, citing 49 C.F.R. §§ 231.1-231.14 and 231.24-28 (2000), argues that the FRA has promulgated "detailed regulations governing handbrakes," and that there is no indication that its SD60 handbrake violates these regulations. Soo Line replies that these regulations apply to the design and manufacture of railcar handbrakes, and not locomotive handbrakes. Whether they apply or not, GM cites no regulation that specifically approves of, or even addresses, the design of the particular handbrake used on the SD60. Although the SD60 handbrake very well may comply with the regulations as far as they go, the absence of any regulation addressing the handbrake's doubler assembly presents the same situation present in Groeger, where the regulations addressed boiler construction and maintenance but did not specifically require the use of fusible plugs. Groeger, 266 U.S. at 525-26 (noting ICC Rule 25 relating to "staybolts" on boilers, and ICC Rule 14 relating to the cleaning of fusible plugs on boilers equipped with such plugs).
Accordingly, neither Groeger nor Mahutga supports GM's position. Rather, they support Soo Line's position that the LIA may be violated in the absence of an on-point FRA regulation. Therefore, we conclude that a court or jury may properly determine whether the SD60 handbrake was "in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury " as required by the LIA, and a claim brought on that basis is not necessarily precluded simply because it does not allege a violation of FRA regulations.
II.
We next address Soo Line's claim for contribution from GM for any liability Soo Line may have under the FELA. It appears well-settled that a railroad may seek contribution or indemnity from a third party for liability incurred under the FELA when state law permits it. See, e.g., Ellison v. Shell Oil Co., 882 F.2d 349, 353-54 (9th Cir. 1989); Shields v. Consol. Rail Corp., 810 F.2d 397, 399 (3d Cir. 1987); Ala. Great S. R.R. v. Chi. & Northwestern Ry., 493 F.2d 979, 983 (8th Cir. 1974); Fort Worth & Denver Ry. v. Threadgill, 228 F.2d 307, 312 (5th Cir. 1955); Stephens v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 991 F. Supp. 618, 620 (S.D. Tex. 1998).
However, "Minnesota's time-honored common law of contribution [does not] justifyá*á*á*ácontribution from parties who are not liable to the injured party. The very essence
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|