Proposed Class Claims Against Railroad For Ohio Chemical Spill Withstand Motion To Dismiss
In November 2013, four railcars derailed in Willard, Ohio, one of which carried Styrene Monomer, which caused approximately 400 homes and thousands of residents to evacuate the area. A proposed class of those residents brought suit and alleged that the railroad negligently installed used rail in the location prior to the incident, failed to perform safety inspections, and failed to correct safety issues regarding the structural integrity of the rail. On Friday, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied the railroad’s motion to dismiss and allowed the plaintiffs’ claims to proceed.
The railroad argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act or the Federal Railroad Safety Act, and also that the claims failed to allege legally cognizable injuries. The court disagreed, finding that the plaintiffs’ claims of negligence and qualified nuisance were based solely on allegations that the railroad failed to comply with Federal Railroad Administration safety regulations involving the inspection of defective rails and accordingly, the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act did not preempt the claims because they did not relate to the economic regulation of railroads.
Similarly, the Federal Railroad Safety Act did not preempt the claims. A 2007 clarification amendment to the Federal Railroad Safety Act provided, “nothing in [the preemption] section of the FRSA shall be construed as preventing an action under State law seeking damages for personal injury, death, or property damage” when the claim alleges that a party has “failed to comply” with a federal regulation, the party’s own safety standard, or a state law or regulation that is not preempted. Here, the plaintiffs based their claims on the failure to comply with federal inspection requirements, and did not base their claims on the failure to use inspection methods not required by federal regulations (or a railroad’s policy based on federal regulation).
Lastly, the court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently pled legal injuries by alleging that they were evacuated from their residences, incurred expenses for cleanup, and suffered physical discomforts from the exposure to the spilled chemical.
