Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton v. BNSF Railway Co.
Jun  28: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case Nos.  09-16585, 09-16739, &  09-17640. Appealed from the United States District  Court for the Eastern District of California. The  Appeals Court explains that appellants BNSF Railway Company and Union Pacific Railroad Company (the Railroads) formerly maintained railroad tracks on a parcel of land in Stockton, California, that  was contaminated by petroleum. The petroleum was spilled  at a nearby industrial site and migrated onto the  property via an underground french drain the Railroads  had installed in order to remove water from the roadbed.  The Appeals Court considered whether the Railroads  are liable for the contamination of the property under  the law of nuisance or under California's Polanco Redevelopment Act (Polanco Act), Cal. Health & Safety  Code § 33459 et. seq. The Appeals Court  ruled that the Railroads are not  liable.        
     
    The Appeals Court said further, "There is no evidence  that the Railroads actively or knowingly caused or  permitted the contamination as required for nuisance  liability and liability under the Polanco Act's Water Code provision. Nor were the Railroads 'owners' of the property  under the Polanco Act's CERCLA provision when the  contamination occurred. Because the record establishes  no genuine issue of material fact as to the Railroads'  liability, the Railroads are entitled to summary  judgment. Therefore, we need  not reach any of the damages issues on appeal or crossappeal. . . We reverse the grant  of summary judgment for the Agency on the nuisance and  Polanco Act-Water Code provision issues and remand for  entry of summary judgment for the Appellants. We affirm  the grant of summary judgment to the Appellants on the  Polanco Act-CERCLA provision issue. Costs are awarded to  the Appellants."
     Access the complete opinion  (click here). [*Remed, *CA9]
 GET THE REST OF  TODAY'S NEWS
For a limited time period --  JUST 2 MORE DAYS -- you can access today's complete issue of  eNewsUSA without the links http://bit.ly/kPRdso.
Roth v. Norfalco LLC
Jun 28:  In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Case No. 10-2524. Appealed from the  United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In a brief  summary the Appeals Court explains, David Roth was attempting to unload a  railway tank car filled with sulfuric acid when its chemical contents exploded,  spraying Roth across his face and chest and inflicting severe burns. Roth  brought suit, seeking damages for his personal injuries under the common law,  but the District Court held that his lawsuit was preempted by the Hazardous  Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), 49 U.S.C. §§ 51015128. The Appeals Court  agreed and affirmed the district court decision.   
In further explanation, the Appeals Court says, "the statute and its applicability could not be more clear. Roth seeks to impose a tank car design requirement. Section 5125(b)(1) expressly preempts any common law requirement 'about' the design of a 'package, container, or packaging component . . . qualified for use in transporting hazardous materials in commerce.' Roth concedes that Norfalco's tank cars are containers qualified for use in transporting hazardous materials in commerce. Thus, the HMTA plainly encompasses Roth's common law claims. It is irrelevant what Roth was doing at the precise moment of his injury. This only makes sense, for it cannot be the case that the comprehensive design requirements erected by the HMTA cease to govern simply because the tank car was emptied of its contents days after its delivery. The tank car is, at all times, a container qualified for use in transporting hazardous materials. The proposed design requirement is expressly preempted."  
In further explanation, the Appeals Court says, "the statute and its applicability could not be more clear. Roth seeks to impose a tank car design requirement. Section 5125(b)(1) expressly preempts any common law requirement 'about' the design of a 'package, container, or packaging component . . . qualified for use in transporting hazardous materials in commerce.' Roth concedes that Norfalco's tank cars are containers qualified for use in transporting hazardous materials in commerce. Thus, the HMTA plainly encompasses Roth's common law claims. It is irrelevant what Roth was doing at the precise moment of his injury. This only makes sense, for it cannot be the case that the comprehensive design requirements erected by the HMTA cease to govern simply because the tank car was emptied of its contents days after its delivery. The tank car is, at all times, a container qualified for use in transporting hazardous materials. The proposed design requirement is expressly preempted."
    Access the complete opinion (click here). [*Haz,  *Transport, *CA3]   
     
GET THE REST OF  TODAY'S NEWS
For a limited time period --  JUST 2 MORE DAYS -- you can access today's complete issue of  eNewsUSA without the links http://bit.ly/kPRdso.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
 












 
 Posts
Posts
 
 

