Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 22 June 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 16-1462,16-1462 |
Citation | 914 N.W.2d 273 |
Parties | Mark GRIFFIOEN, Joyce Ludvicek, Mike Ludvicek, Sandra Skelton, and Brian Vanous, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. CEDAR RAPIDS AND IOWA CITY RAILWAY COMPANY, Alliant Energy Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and Union Pacific Corporation, Appellees. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Russell G. Petti of Law Offices of Russell G. Petti, La Canada, CA; Sam Sheronick of Sam Sheronick Law Firm, P.C., Cedar Rapids; C. Brooks Cutter and John R. Parker Jr. of Cutter Law P.C., Sacramento, CA; Edward A. Wallace and Amy E. Keller (until withdrawal) of Wexler Wallace LLP, Chicago, IL; and Eric J. Ratinoff of Eric Ratinoff Law Corp., Sacramento, CA, for appellants.
Alice E. Loughran of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, DC; Charles T. Hvass Jr. of Donna Law Firm P.C., Minneapolis, MN; and Bruce E. Johnson of Cutler Law Firm, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellees Union Pacific Railroad Company and Union Pacific Corporation.
Timothy R. Thornton and Leah Ceee O. Boomsma of Briggs and Morgan, P.A., Minneapolis, MN; and Kevin Collins and Sarah J. Gayer of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellees Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway Company and Alliant Energy Corporation.
This case is yet another outgrowth from the terrible flooding that struck our state a decade ago. Property owners in Cedar Rapids have sued the owners of certain railroad bridges across the Cedar River, alleging that their misguided efforts to protect those bridges from washing out worsened the effects of the flooding for other property owners. We must decide whether the property owners’ state-law damage claims against the railroad bridge owners are preempted by the Federal Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA). See 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b) (2006). The ICCTA confers "exclusive" jurisdiction on the Federal Surface Transportation Board over "transportation by rail carriers" and over the "construction" or "operation" of rail tracks or "facilities." Id. The ICCTA expressly provides "exclusive" remedies "with respect to regulation of rail transportation" and expressly preempts any other "remedies provided under Federal or State law." Id.
After careful review of the ICCTA and authorities interpreting it, we conclude this federal law does indeed preempt the property owners’ action alleging that the railroads’ design and operation of their railroad bridges resulted in flood damage to other properties. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ruling granting the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Our decision is consistent with the federal authorities examining this question of federal law. Clearly, not all state-law tort claims involving railroads are preempted by the ICCTA. But state tort claims like the ones alleged here that involve second-guessing of decisions made by railroads to keep their rail lines open are expressly preempted by Title 49 § 10501(b) of the ICCTA. See Tubbs v. Surface Transp. Bd. , 812 F.3d 1141, 1144–46 (8th Cir. 2015) ( ); Jones Creek Inv’rs, LLC v. Columbia County , 98 F.Supp.3d 1279, 1291–94 (S.D. Ga. 2015) ( ); Waubay Lake Farmers Ass’n v. BNSF Ry. , No. 12-4179-RAL, 2014 WL 4287086, at *6 (D.S.D. Aug. 28, 2014) ( ); In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consol. Litig. , No. 05-4182, 2009 WL 224072, at *4–6 (E.D. La. Jan. 26, 2009) ( ); Maynard v. CSX Transp., Inc ., 360 F.Supp.2d 836, 842 (E.D. Ky. 2004) ( ); A & W Props., Inc. v. Kan. City S. Ry. , 200 S.W.3d 342, 347 (Tex. App. 2006) ( ).
Two categories of state-law tort claims typically are not preempted by the ICCTA. One is a tort claim that challenges a railroad’s activities other than the maintenance and operation of its rail lines. See Guild v. Kan. City S. Ry. , 541 F. App’x 362, 368 (5th Cir. 2013) ( ); Emerson v. Kan. City S. Ry. , 503 F.3d 1126, 1130 (10th Cir. 2007) ( ); Rushing v. Kan. City S. Ry. , 194 F.Supp.2d 493, 499–501 (S.D. Miss. 2001) ( ); Jones v. Union Pac. R.R. , 79 Cal.App.4th 1053, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 661, 666–67 (2000) ( ).
A second category of claims are those relating to rail safety, where a separate, narrower preemption provision in the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA) applies. See 49 U.S.C. § 20106 ; Tyrrell v. Norfolk S. Ry. , 248 F.3d 517, 523–25 (6th Cir. 2001) ( ); Waneck v. CSX Corp ., No. 1:17cv106-HSO-JCG, 2018 WL 1546373, at *4–6 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 29, 2018) ( ).
In short, "there is nothing in the case law that supports [the] argument that, through the ICCTA, Congress only intended preemption of economic regulation of the railroads." City of Auburn v. U.S. Gov’t , 154 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 1998). If a state-law tort claim requires second-guessing of a railroad’s operation and management of its own rail lines as opposed to other activities, and the claim does not pertain to rail safety, it is preempted by the ICCTA. Hence, after careful consideration, we conclude this tort action seeking a large sum of damages for flooding allegedly caused by the railroads’ maintenance of their rail bridges is preempted. In this instance, as in many preemption cases, we do not believe further development of the record is needed, and accordingly we affirm the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings.
Because this case was resolved on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, we assume the truth of the facts stated in the pleadings. See Hussemann ex rel. Ritter v. Hussemann , 847 N.W.2d 219, 222 (Iowa 2014) (). Certain facts can also be judicially noticed. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.415. In the summer of 2008, Iowa residents experienced devastating flooding. Cedar Rapids was hit particularly hard with the worst flooding in its history. More than ten square miles were impacted by the floodwaters, and an estimated 10,000 residents were displaced by the flood.
The plaintiffs own property in Cedar Rapids. The defendants—Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Union Pacific Corporation, and Alliant Energy Corporation—own railroad bridges traversing the Cedar River in Cedar Rapids. On June 10, 2008, the defendants parked railcars laden with rocks on their bridges to weigh down the bridges in an effort to keep them from washing away during the flooding. Two days later, two of the four bridges collapsed.
The fallen railcars clogged the Cedar River and therefore caused or exacerbated the damage to plaintiffs’ property. The two bridges that did not collapse also caused damage when the rising water reached the railcars atop the bridges, creating a dam effect and diverting water to low-lying areas.
On June 7, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a class action petition at law in the Linn County District Court, alleging negligence, strict liability for engaging in an abnormally dangerous or ultra-hazardous activity, and strict liability based on violations of Iowa Code sections 468.148 and 327F.2 (2009). The plaintiffs sought actual damages of $6 billion and punitive and treble damages.1
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Coffman
... 914 N.W.2d 240 STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Terry Lee COFFMAN, Appellant. No. 16-1720 ...2000), overruled on other grounds by Brigham City v. Stuart , 547 U.S. 398, 404, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 1948, 164 ......
-
State v. CSX Transp., Inc.
...prohibiting nonessential train idling at night in certain places preempted by the Termination Act); Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co. , 914 N.W.2d 273, 286 (Iowa 2018) ("laws, ordinances, and common-law damage actions challenging where and when railroads placed their railcars on......
-
Gordon v. New England Cent. R.R.
...claims . . . that involve second-guessing of decisions made by railroads" are preempted by the ICCTA. Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co., 914 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Iowa 2018). To allow such a claim to proceed would subject a railroad to unpredictable, piecemeal state regulation with l......
-
State v. CSX Transp.
...... F.4th 1190, 1194 (10th Cir.2022); Elam v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 635 F.3d 796, 807 (5th Cir.2011); State v. ... places preempted by the Termination Act); Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co., 914 N.W.2d 273,. ......