Kurns v. RFP

Constitutional question:  Did the Supreme Court intend the Locomotive Inspection Act to preempt all state-law tort claims?

Facts of the case:

George Corson worked for almost 30 years for Railroad Friction Products as a mechanic repairing locomotives in a railroad maintenance facility.  During this time, he was routinely exposed to asbestos dust, which has long been known to be carcinogenic.  In 2005, he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer, the only known cause of which is asbestos.  He filed a lawsuit against Railroad Friction Products in a Pennsylvania court, raising several state-law tort claims against the manufacturers and distributors of the asbestos-containing locomotive products.  Corson claimed that the products were defective and he had never been properly warned about the asbestos.  He died two years after his diagnosis.

In 1911, Congress passed the Boiler Inspection Act, which over time has involved into the Locomotive Inspection Act in place currently.  The Locomotive Inspection Act addresses matters of safety and liability concerning trains and railroads.

In 1926, the Supreme Court ruled on Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad that the Boiler Inspection Act did preempt state laws.

Arguments before the court:

            Railroad Friction Products argues that the Locomotive Inspection Act was supposed to preempt state laws, and Pennsylvania’s laws are intruding on a field that Congress has reserved for federal regulation.  Kurns contends that Congress did not clearly intend to preempt state laws, and that in any case, the LIA only addresses locomotives “in use” on railroad lines, not locomotives at maintenance facilities.  Furthermore, she argues, if the LIA did preempt state laws, workers like Corson would have no way to seek justice.

Prediction:

            I predict that the court will rule that the LIA does preempt state laws.  They have ruled this way in the past, and from the transcripts I read, it seems that most of the people involved seem to think agree that the LIA preempts state laws.  In fact, it might not be possible for RFP to comply with both state and federal laws, and when there is such a conflict, it seems natural for federal laws to “beat” state laws.