Buono v. Tyco Fire Prods.

• Docket Number: 22-754
• Decision Date: 24 August 2023
• Parties: Franklin Buono, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tyco Fire Products, LP, Defendant-Appellee.[*]
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

1

Franklin Buono, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Tyco Fire Products, LP, Defendant-Appellee.^[*]

No. 22-754

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

August 24, 2023

Argued: May 25, 2023

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Franklin Buono was severely injured at work when a tank filled with compressed air exploded. Buono brought common-law claims

2

for strict liability and negligence against Tyco Fire Products, LP ("Tyco"), which sold the tank to Buono's employer. Tyco moved for summary judgment, arguing that Buono's claims are preempted under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 ("HMTA"), 49 U.S.C. § 5125(b)(1). The district court (Halpern, J.) held that the claims are preempted and granted Tyco summary judgment.

We agree. The HMTA expressly preempts nonfederal laws "about" certain subjects related to the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce. As relevant here, the HMTA preempts state laws that are (1) "about . . . the . . . marking" of a "container . . . that is represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material in commerce," and (2) "not substantively the same as a provision" of the HMTA or a regulation promulgated thereunder. 49 U.S.C. § 5125(b)(1). Both requirements are satisfied here. First, the tank was "marked . . . as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material," and Buono's common-law claims are "about" the "marking" of Tyco's tank. Second, Buono's common-law claims cannot be deemed "substantively the same" because they would impose duties beyond the HMTA and associated regulations. The HMTA thus expressly preempts Buono's common-law claims, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

MARIE DUSAULT (Kenneth Fromson, on the brief), Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, Newburgh, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant Franklin Buono.

3

JAMES KIRKPATRICK (Daniel Whiteley, on the brief), Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee Tyco Fire Products, LP.

Before: WESLEY, PARK, and PEREZ, Circuit Judges.

PARK, CIRCUIT JUDGE

Franklin Buono was severely injured at work when a tank filled with compressed air exploded. Buono brought common-law claims for strict liability and negligence against Tyco Fire Products, LP ("Tyco"), which sold the tank to Buono's employer. Tyco moved for summary judgment, arguing that Buono's claims are preempted under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 ("HMTA"), 49 U.S.C. § 5125(b)(1). The district court (Halpern, J.) held that the claims are preempted and granted Tyco summary judgment.

We agree. The HMTA expressly preempts nonfederal laws "about" certain subjects related to the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce. As relevant here, the HMTA preempts state laws that are (1) "about . . . the . . . marking" of a "container . . . that is represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material in commerce," and (2) "not substantively the same as a provision" of the HMTA or a regulation promulgated thereunder. 49 U.S.C. § 5125(b)(1). Both requirements are satisfied here. First, the tank was "marked . . . as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material," and Buono's common-law claims are "about" the "marking" of Tyco's tank. Second, Buono's common-law claims cannot be deemed "substantively the same" because they would impose duties beyond the HMTA and associated regulations. The HMTA thus expressly

4

preempts Buono's common-law claims, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

In early 2016, Franklin Buono started working at Oprandy's Fire &Safety Inc. ("Oprandy's") in Middletown, New York. Oprandy's "services, inspects, and repairs fire extinguishers, compressed air tanks, and fire suppression systems." Joint App'x at A-36. Several weeks after starting at Oprandy's, Buono agreed to help his coworker Chris Foust test a "Kitchen Knight" fire-suppression system, which was developed by a subsidiary of Tyco.

The Kitchen Knight system consists of spray nozzles connected to a cylinder containing a pressurized wet chemical agent. When activated, the system releases the agent through the nozzles to suppress a fire. To test the integrity of the Kitchen Knight system, a servicer may conduct a "balloon test." Id. at A-38. This involves replacing the cylinder with a "test tank" containing compressed air and attaching balloons to the nozzles. Then the servicer releases the compressed air through the system. If the balloon expands, then "the servicer knows that the pipes are intact." Id. If not, then the fire-suppression system has malfunctioned.

The test tank Foust and Buono used was a DOT type 4BW steel cylinder, which was marked with the text "DOT 4BW 225 M453."^[1]Id. at A-49; see 49 C.F.R. § 178.61. The test tank was manufactured by

5

Worthington Industries and sold to Tyco, which in turn sold it through a subsidiary to Oprandy's as a safety accessory for its Kitchen Knight system. As is its practice, Tyco did not fill the test tank with compressed air before shipping it to Oprandy's, so Foust hooked it up to another system to fill it with compressed air. Buono checked if the tank's pressure gauge moved and listened for air entering the tank. But he did not see the gauge moving or hear any noise, so he assumed no air was entering. While Foust was "tinkering" with the tank, he "had to push down on the valve on [top] of the cylinder with a screwdriver and then turn the valve on the long metal piece to let the air in." Joint App'x at A-47 to -48. The test tank then ruptured, and shrapnel hit several fire extinguishers, causing a "huge explosion," in which Buono lost one of his legs. Id. at A-142 to -143.

B. Procedural Background

Buono filed a complaint in New York state court against numerous Defendants, including Tyco, seeking damages. Buono raised New York common-law claims for negligence based on manufacturing or design defect, breach of warranty, and strict products liability. Defendants removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) based on diversity jurisdiction. In an amended complaint, Buono realleged the same common-law claims and added a negligence claim based on failure to warn. Following pretrial conferences and the beginning of discovery, the parties stipulated to the dismissal without prejudice of claims and cross-claims against two Defendants but not the claims against Tyco. Tyco then filed a third-party complaint against Buono's former employer Oprandy's, seeking defense, indemnification, and contribution.

6

After discovery, Tyco moved for summary judgment, principally arguing that the HMTA preempts Buono's common-law claims. At oral argument on Tyco's motion, Buono voluntarily dismissed with prejudice his claims against Tyco for breach of warranty and negligence based on design or manufacturing defect. Buono's only remaining claims against Tyco are for strict products liability and negligence based on failure to warn.

The district court granted Tyco's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, holding that § 5125(b)(1)(E) "unambiguously preempts any New York common law duties." Special App'x at SPA-7. First, it stated that there was "no dispute that the tank was qualified for use in transporting hazardous material in commerce under federal law" and that Buono's claims were "about" an enumerated subject. Id. at SPA-8. Second, it found that Buono's common-law claims for "negligent failure to warn" and "strict liability based on a failure to warn" would "impose upon Defendant . . . duties beyond those required by federal law." Id.

Buono timely appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

Buono contends that the HMTA does not preempt...