Justia Transportation Law Opinion Summaries

The Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), 49 U.S.C. 20701, provides that “a locomotive … and its parts and appurtenances” must be “in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury.” The Federal Railroad Administration, under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation, has promulgated regulations on the governing standards of care. Canadian Pacific settled lawsuits brought by its employees who had suffered injuries as a result of defective train seats, then brought indemnification, contribution, and breach-of-contract claims against Knoedler Manufacturing, which supplied the seats, and Durham, which tried unsuccessfully to repair the seats. The district court dismissed Canadian Pacific’s claims as preempted by the LIA. The Third Circuit vacated. State law claims of breach of contract, indemnification, contribution based on the LIA are not preempted. To hold that the LIA preempts all breach-of-contract claims would allow, and perhaps encourage, manufacturers to make grand contractual promises to obtain a deal and then breach their duties with impunity. View "Del. & Hudson Ry. Co v. Knoedler Mfrs., Inc" on Justia Law

A package was shipped from a FedEx location in Eureka, California to an address in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The printed address label inadvertently showed an incorrect address, that address being Plaintiff’s address. When the package was delivered, Plaintiff and her eleven-year-old daughter opened the package to find two bags of marijuana. Plaintiff alerted the police. That same day, a man came to Plaintiff’s door asking whether Plaintiff had received a package. As a result of these events, Plaintiff and her minor daughters suffered fear and anxiety. Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children, sued FedEx, alleging invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that FedEx mislabeled and misdelivered the package and that FedEx disclosed Plaintiff’s address to third parties. The case was removed to federal district court. The court granted summary judgment for FedEx, concluding that Plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s three common-law claims were barred by the preemption provision of the ADA. View "Tobin v. Fedex Corp." on Justia Law

A package was shipped from a FedEx location in Eureka, California to an address in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The printed address label inadvertently showed an incorrect address, that address being Plaintiff’s address. When the package was delivered, Plaintiff and her eleven-year-old daughter opened the package to find two bags of marijuana. Plaintiff alerted the police. That same day, a man came to Plaintiff’s door asking whether Plaintiff had received a package. As a result of these events, Plaintiff and her minor daughters suffered fear and anxiety. Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children, sued FedEx, alleging invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that FedEx mislabeled and misdelivered the package and that FedEx disclosed Plaintiff’s address to third parties. The case was removed to federal district court. The court granted summary judgment for FedEx, concluding that Plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s three common-law claims were barred by the preemption provision of the ADA.View "Tobin v. Fedex Corp." on Justia Law

The FAA may “delegate to a qualified private person . . . the examination, testing, and inspection necessary to issue a certificate … and … issuing the certificate,” 49 U.S.C. 44702(d)(1), and may rescind delegation “at any time for any reason.” Airworthiness Representative-Maintenance (DAR-T) authorization to conduct aircraft inspections and issue airworthiness certificates has no expiration. Burdue was appointed as a DAR-T in 2001. In 2013, Burdue’s supervisors were informed of issues related to Burdue’s export certifications. The FAA’s Special Emphasis Investigations Team (SEIT) concluded that Burdue performed multiple aircraft inspections out of his assigned geographic area without authorization and had issued export certificates to aircraft owned by his wife, a conflict of interest. After review of Burdue’s response, Burdue’s certificate was revoked, both “for cause,” 14 C.F.R. 183.15(b)(4) and under the discretionary-revocation provision, 14 C.F.R. 183.15(b)(6). An Appeal Panel affirmed. Burdue brought a Bivens action, claiming due process violations and wrongful termination, then filed statutory claims in the Sixth Circuit. The district court stayed the Bivens proceedings. The Sixth Circuit declined to review the statutory claims because the FAA’s decision is committed to agency discretion and declined to review the constitutional claims that belong in the district court View "Burdue v. Fed. Aviation Admin." on Justia Law

MileagePlus, United’s frequent flyer program, rewards customers with free flights and seat upgrades. Its Rules have always allowed United to change the terms of the program unilaterally, without notice. In 1997 United announced a new Million-Mile Flyer status: Lifetime Premier Executive status. “Mileage Plus members who have earned a total of one million paid flight miles on United will retain the benefits and privileges of Premier Executive status for life.” After merging with Continental, United changed the status levels and moved the Million-Mile Flyers from Premier Executive status to the new system. United decided that the Premier Gold level was equivalent, but Gold customers receive only a 50% bonus on miles flown, not 100%, and do not have regional and system-wide upgrades that Million-Mile Flyers previously received. Lagen enrolled in MileagePlus in 1993 and became a Million-Mile Flyer in 2006 after switching his airline loyalty from British Airways. He sued for breach of contract under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2)(A). The district court granted United summary judgment, finding that no rational trier of fact could conclude that United had a distinct Million-Mile Flyer program that was not part of MileagePlus, subject to unilateral change. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Lagen v. United Cont'l Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

The Neutrality Act, 18 U.S.C. 962, passed in 1794, is generally recognized as the first instance of municipal legislation in support of the obligations of neutrality. The Act makes it unlawful to furnish, fit out, or arm a vessel within the U.S. with the intent of having the vessel used in the service of a foreign state or people to commit hostilities against another foreign state or people with whom the U.S. is at peace. Vessels covered by the Act are subject to forfeiture, and persons who give information leading to the seizure of such vessels may recover a bounty. Bauer sought to pursue a claim under the Act, claiming to have informed the government of vessels that had been funded, furnished, and fitted by anti-Israel organizations in the U.S., together with violent and militant anti-Israel organizations from other countries. The complaint alleged that the vessels were to be employed in the service of Hamas, a terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip, to commit hostilities against Israel. The district court dismissed, holding that the statute lacks an express private cause of action. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding that informers lack standing to sue on their own. View "Bauer v. Mavi Marmara" on Justia Law

Bus driver Bumpass hit the brakes as he approached a stop sign. Robinson, a standing passenger on the bus, fell backward and broke her leg. Robinson sued WMATA, claiming that Bumpass violated WMATA’s standard operating procedures (SOPs) and that the “jerk” caused by Bumpass’ application of the brakes was of such extraordinary force that his negligence could be inferred. Bumpass admitted that he did not check his mirror before leaving the stop that morning. He knew there were several open seats up front, he said, and he assumed Robinson had sat down by the time he closed the doors and started driving. Robinson testified that the bus was going “fast, faster than normal buses,” and that it “was jerking and then [there] was an abrupt stop.” The district court rejected a jury award of $404,713.28. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding that a reasonable jury could not have decided in Robinson’s favor. Robinson failed to establish a causal relationship between Bumpass’ deviation from SOPs and her injury; unusual and extraordinary force cannot be inferred from mere descriptive adjectives and conclusions alone. View "Robinson v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth." on Justia Law

TPI filed a rate complaint with the STB, alleging that numerous CSX common carrier rates were unreasonable and CSX moved for an expedited procedure with respect to questions related to market dominance. The Board granted the motion and bifurcated the adjudication into a market dominance phase and a second rate reasonableness phase. Then the Board issued a decision, concluding that CSX had market dominance over 51 contested rates. The Board rejected requests for reconsideration and CSX sought review of the Board's interlocutory ruling regarding the 51 rates. The court agreed with the Board that the appeal must be dismissed because the contested dominance decision is a non-final order. There is no final order because the Board has yet to inquire into the reasonableness of CSX's rates and has issued no adverse ruling with respect to any rates. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for review. View "CSX Transportation v. STB" on Justia Law

This case arose from a dispute between Franks and Union Pacific over whether Franks has the right to cross Union Pacific's train tracks on certain property in Caddo Parish originally owned by the Levy family at the turn of the 20th Century. On appeal, Franks challenged the district court's final judgment granting summary judgment for defendant and dismissing Franks's claims with prejudice. Franks argued that the district court erred in denying the existence of a predial servitude in the three crossings at issue. The court concluded that, under the law applicable to the interpretation of the 1923 deed, the contract is unambiguous; it does not establish a predial servitude with respect to Texas and Pacific Railway Company's obligation to provide three crossings across what was then its property; but, rather, it is merely a personal obligation which does not bind the railway's successors-in-interest. View "Franks Investment Co, L.L.C. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a declaratory relief action where the Railroad sought a determination of the rent due from the Pipeline for the continued use of its easements from 2004 to 2014. The Railroad obtained a declaration that the rent due was in excess of $14 million per year. The trial court entered judgment reflecting the total back rent due, plus interest, up to the date of entry of judgment. The Pipeline appealed. The court addressed the law relating to railroad rights-of-way in an effort to resolve the legal issues that apply to property interests in the land and, by extension, the Railroad's right to grant and lease subsurface easements to the Pipeline. The court reversed and remanded the trial court's finding as to the "total fee value" for purposes of its ATF calculation; directed the trial court to determine the total fee value of those parcels of land in which the Railroad had sufficient interest to entitle it to collect rent on the Pipeline's easements between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2013; concluded that the trial court committed no error with respect to its determinations regarding issue preclusion, use of the ATF method, - calculations of the rental rate, the enhancement factor, and the use factor -, and the dates of abandonment of certain easements by the Pipeline; and reversed and remanded that part of the judgment awarding prejudgment interest under Civil Code 3287(a) in order for the trial court to determine whether the Pipeline was liable for the payment of rent on the reserved easements, the abandoned easements, or Line Section 101, which rent it unilaterally withheld. View "Union Pacific Railroad v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines" on Justia Law