Justia Transportation Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a challenge to a rule promulgated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) in 2020, which authorized the transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) by rail in newly designed tank cars without requiring a permit. LNG is a hazardous material that poses significant risks if released, including explosions, fires, and the formation of ultra-cold gas clouds. The rule did not limit the number of LNG tank cars per train or set a mandatory speed limit, raising safety concerns among various stakeholders.The rule was challenged by a coalition of environmental nonprofits, several states, and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. They argued that PHMSA did not adequately consider the safety risks and that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The petitioners contended that the decision not to prepare an EIS was arbitrary and capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that PHMSA's decision not to prepare an EIS was indeed arbitrary and capricious. The court noted that transporting LNG by rail poses a low-probability but high-consequence risk of derailment, which could result in catastrophic environmental impacts. The court emphasized that PHMSA failed to adequately consider the probability and potential consequences of such accidents and did not impose sufficient safety measures, such as a mandatory speed limit or a cap on the number of LNG tank cars per train.The court held that PHMSA's failure to prepare an EIS violated NEPA and vacated the LNG Rule, remanding the case to PHMSA for further proceedings. The court's decision underscores the importance of thoroughly assessing environmental risks and adhering to NEPA's requirements in rulemaking processes. View "Sierra Club v. DOT" on Justia Law

The City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority challenged a decision by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to issue a phase I driverless autonomous vehicle (AV) deployment permit to Waymo, LLC for fared passenger service in San Francisco and parts of San Mateo County. The petitioners argued that the PUC failed to follow the law and disregarded significant public safety issues. However, the record showed that the PUC considered and responded to the safety concerns raised by the petitioners, noting that few incidents involved Waymo driverless AVs, each was minor, and none involved injuries.The PUC had previously issued a decision establishing a pilot program for the regulation of AV passenger carriers, which included both drivered and driverless AVs. The petitioners participated in these proceedings but did not challenge the decision at that time. Waymo submitted an advice letter in December 2022 seeking a phase I driverless AV deployment permit, which was protested by the San Francisco entities. The PUC's Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division circulated a draft resolution authorizing Waymo's permit, and after considering comments and holding meetings, the PUC issued a final resolution in August 2023, authorizing Waymo to provide fared driverless AV service.The California Court of Appeal reviewed the case and found that the PUC acted within its authority and did not abuse its discretion. The court noted that the PUC's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including data showing that Waymo driverless AVs had not been involved in any collisions resulting in injuries. The court also upheld the PUC's use of the advice letter process, as it was authorized by the PUC's prior decision. The court denied the relief requested by the petitioners, affirming the PUC's decision to issue the phase I driverless AV deployment permit to Waymo. View "City and County of San Francisco v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

Shawn Montgomery was severely injured when his truck was hit by a tractor-trailer driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena, who was employed by motor carrier Caribe Transport II, LLC. The shipment was coordinated by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., a freight broker. Montgomery sued Varela-Mojena, Caribe, and Robinson, alleging that Robinson negligently hired Varela-Mojena and Caribe and was vicariously liable for their actions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted partial summary judgment in favor of Robinson on the vicarious liability claim, finding that Varela-Mojena and Caribe were independent contractors, not agents of Robinson. Following the Seventh Circuit's decision in Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., which held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts state law claims against freight brokers for negligent hiring, the district court also granted judgment for Robinson on the negligent hiring claims. Final judgment was entered in favor of Robinson to facilitate Montgomery's appeal, while his claims against Varela-Mojena and Caribe were stayed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Robinson did not exercise the necessary control over Caribe and Varela-Mojena to establish an agency relationship, thus negating vicarious liability. The court also declined to overrule its precedent in Ye, maintaining that the FAAAA preempts state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Robinson. View "Montgomery v. C.H. Robinson Company" on Justia Law

Campbell and Jennie Clegg purchased first-class round-trip tickets from American Airlines for themselves and three family members for travel between Albany, New York, and San Francisco, California, in May 2022. They agreed to American’s Conditions of Carriage, which required check-in at least 45 minutes before departure. The night before their flight, the Cleggs were unable to check in online and were instructed to check in at the airport. They arrived at the airport at 4:47 a.m. for their 6:04 a.m. flight but were unable to check in due to a computer system issue. Consequently, they missed their flight and later found that their return flight was canceled. They did not receive a refund for either flight.The Cleggs filed a complaint in the Cumberland County Superior Court, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and breach of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. The court granted American Airlines' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Cleggs’ claims were preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act. The Cleggs appealed the decision.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and vacated the Superior Court's judgment in part. The court held that while the Airline Deregulation Act preempts state law claims related to airline services, the Cleggs could pursue a breach of contract claim based on the Conditions of Carriage. The court determined that the Cleggs might be entitled to a refund for their tickets and any extras, as specified in the Conditions of Carriage. However, the court affirmed that the Cleggs could not recover consequential or punitive damages, attorney fees, or costs, as these were preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Clegg v. American Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

Deborah Bradshaw and Chrystal Antao sued American Airlines and Mesa Airlines, alleging injuries and damages from the airlines' negligent handling of an in-flight emergency. During a June 2020 flight, the aircraft experienced a malfunction that led to a loss of cabin pressure, requiring an emergency descent. The plaintiffs claimed the pilot failed to properly inform passengers of the threat and descended too rapidly, while American Airlines failed to provide medical personnel upon landing.The case was initially filed in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and later removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on diversity grounds. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the airlines, concluding that federal law preempted Oklahoma's common-carrier standard of care in aviation safety. The court allowed the plaintiffs to pursue a state negligence claim using the federal "reckless-or-careless manner" standard but found no evidence that the airlines violated this standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Federal Aviation Act and related regulations preempt state law in the field of aviation safety. The court agreed that the federal "careless or reckless manner" standard of care applies, preempting Oklahoma's common-carrier standard. The court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding a violation of federal regulations by the airlines and upheld the summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Bradshaw v. American Airlines" on Justia Law

The Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT) proposed a project to reconstruct the interchange between Interstate 89 and U.S. Routes 2 and 7 in Colchester, Vermont, into a Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI). Timberlake Associates, LLP, the landowner of a gas station at the southeast corner of the interchange, contested the necessity of the land takings required for the project. Timberlake argued that AOT did not fulfill its pre-suit obligation to negotiate and that the trial court erred in its determination of necessity.The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division, held a four-day evidentiary hearing and concluded that Timberlake failed to demonstrate bad faith or abuse of discretion by AOT. The court found that AOT had satisfied its burden of demonstrating the necessity of taking Timberlake’s property to the extent proposed. Timberlake appealed the decision, arguing that AOT did not adequately consider the statutory factors of necessity and failed to negotiate in good faith.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court found that AOT presented sufficient evidence showing it considered the statutory factors, including the adequacy of other property and locations, the effect on the landowner’s convenience, and the environmental impacts. The Court also determined that AOT’s selection of the DDI design was justified based on its superior performance in increasing capacity, reducing congestion, and improving safety compared to other alternatives. Additionally, the Court concluded that AOT made reasonable efforts to negotiate with Timberlake before filing suit, as required by statute.The Vermont Supreme Court held that the trial court acted within its discretion in determining the necessity of the takings and that AOT fulfilled its pre-suit obligation to negotiate. The decision of the lower court was affirmed. View "Agency of Transportation v. Timberlake Associates, LLC" on Justia Law

Donald Blazer was involved in a vehicle accident and voluntarily submitted to a preliminary breath test (PBT), which showed a blood alcohol content of .102 percent. However, he refused to submit to a blood draw. The South Dakota Department of Public Safety (Department) notified Blazer of its intent to disqualify his commercial driver’s license (CDL) for life, citing this refusal as a second violation of SDCL 32-12A-36, with the first being a 2014 DUI conviction. Blazer requested an administrative hearing, and the Department affirmed the disqualification of his CDL for life.Blazer appealed to the circuit court, which reversed the Department’s decision. The circuit court concluded that Blazer’s voluntary submission to the breath test constituted a submission to a chemical analysis, meaning his refusal to submit to the blood draw could not result in the disqualification of his CDL. The Department then appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court.The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court’s decision. The Court held that under SDCL 32-23-1.2, a preliminary breath test (PBT) is permitted and may be required in addition to a chemical test. The Court determined that Blazer’s refusal to submit to the blood draw constituted a refusal to submit to a chemical analysis as required by SDCL 32-12A-46. This refusal was a second violation under SDCL 32-12A-36, justifying the disqualification of Blazer’s CDL for life under SDCL 32-12A-37. The Court emphasized that a PBT is a preliminary test and does not fulfill the requirement for a chemical analysis under the implied consent laws. View "Blazer v. Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law

Wisconsin Central Ltd. and Soo Line Railroad Company are in dispute over the location for exchanging rail traffic in the Chicago area. Wisconsin Central prefers the Belt Railway yard near Chicago, while Soo Line prefers the Spaulding yard near Bartlett, 35 miles away. The Surface Transportation Board initially ruled against Wisconsin Central, stating that it could not use Belt Railway's yard because it did not own it outright, despite having a contractual right to use it. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case, clarifying that a railroad could have the power to designate facilities by contract as well as by ownership.Upon remand, the Surface Transportation Board held that the Belt Railway yard was not a reasonable location for the exchange. The Board found that both locations could cause congestion but concluded that it was unreasonable for Wisconsin Central to insist that Soo Line bear the costs of moving cars to Chicago and the fees charged by Belt Railway. Additionally, the Board emphasized the importance of negotiation and agreement in selecting exchange locations, rather than allowing one party to unilaterally change the location.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the Board's decision. The court held that the Board's interpretation of "reasonable" was within its discretion and that considering costs as part of reasonableness was appropriate. The court also noted that Wisconsin Central did not preserve its argument regarding substantial evidence for review. Consequently, the court found that the Board's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious and did not embody a legal error. The petition for review was denied. View "Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. Surface Transportation Board" on Justia Law

Ali Bahreman, a flight attendant for Allegiant Air, challenged the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Allegiant and the Transport Workers Union (Union). The CBA required employees to either pay union dues or agency fees to maintain seniority-based bidding privileges for work schedules. Bahreman chose not to pay any fees and subsequently lost his bidding privileges. He argued that this arrangement violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by coercing employees to join the Union, deviating from the employment-termination remedy, and breaching the Union's duty of fair representation.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in favor of Allegiant and the Union. The court found that the CBA did not violate the RLA's anti-coercion provision, as it did not induce employees to join the Union. The court also held that the RLA does not prohibit collective bargaining agreements with terms other than those explicitly permitted by the Act. Additionally, the court determined that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation, as it enforced the CBA equally among all members of the bargaining unit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the RLA does not prohibit a collective bargaining agreement that conditions seniority-based bidding privileges on the payment of union dues or agency fees. The court found that the CBA did not induce union membership, as it treated union members and nonmembers alike regarding payment requirements. The court also concluded that the CBA's terms were permissible under the RLA and that the Union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in enforcing the agreement. View "Bahreman v. Allegiant Air, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2016, Rhode Island enacted the RhodeWorks Act, which imposed tolls on tractor-trailers crossing thirteen bridges within the state. The toll revenue was intended for the replacement, reconstruction, operation, and maintenance of these bridges. The tolls were subject to three statutory caps: a truck could not pay more than once in each direction, more than $40 per day, or more than $20 for a single through trip from Connecticut to Massachusetts. The American Trucking Associations and several trucking companies challenged the tolls, arguing they violated the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce and failing to fairly approximate use of the bridges.The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island permanently enjoined the tolls, finding that they discriminated against interstate commerce and did not fairly approximate use. The court concluded that the tolls' application solely to tractor-trailers and the statutory caps each violated the dormant Commerce Clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed that the statutory caps on tolls were unconstitutional because they disproportionately benefited in-state over out-of-state tractor-trailers, thus discriminating against interstate commerce. However, the court held that the tolls' application solely to tractor-trailers did not violate the fair-approximation test, as it was not wholly unreasonable for Rhode Island to rely on studies showing that tractor-trailers caused the most damage to the bridges.The First Circuit concluded that the unconstitutional caps were severable from the rest of the statute. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for the entry of judgment consistent with its opinion. View "American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority" on Justia Law