Village of Mundelein v. Wisconsin Cent.

• Decision Date: 06 September 2006
• Docket Number: No. 2-05-0492.,2-05-0492.
• Citation: 305 Ill.Dec. 339,855 N.E.2d 230
• Parties: The VILLAGE OF MUNDELEIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WISCONSIN CENTRAL RAILROAD, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 230

855 N.E.2d 230

305 Ill.Dec. 339

The VILLAGE OF MUNDELEIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WISCONSIN CENTRAL RAILROAD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2-05-0492.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

September 6, 2006.

Michael J. Barron, Jr., Homewood, for Wisconsin Central Railroad.

Lawrence R. LaLuzerne, Smith & LaLuzerne, Ltd., Waukegan, for The Village of Mundelein.

Justice HUTCHINSON delivered the opinion of the court:

Following a bench trial, defendant, Wisconsin Central Railroad, was found guilty of violating an ordinance enacted by plaintiff, the Village of Mundelein (the Village), prohibiting the obstruction of a highway at a railroad grade crossing. The trial court fined defendant $14,000 plus costs. Defendant timely appeals, contending that the Village's enforcement and application of its ordinance is preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994 (the FRSA) (49 U.S.C. § 20101 et seq. (2000 & Supp. II 2002)). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court's judgment and vacate the fine.

Section 10.20.010 of the Village's municipal code adopts by reference the provisions of the Illinois Vehicle Code (the Vehicle Code) (625 ILCS 5/1-100 et seq. (West 2004)) as its vehicle code. See Mundelein Municipal Code § 10.20.010 (1989). As it pertains here, the obstruction of a highway at a grade crossing by a train is addressed in chapter 18c of the Vehicle Code, titled the Illinois Commercial Transportation Law (the Transportation Law) (625 ILCS 5/18c-1101 et seq. (West 2004)). Section 18c-7402(1)(b) of the Transportation Law (625 ILCS 5/18c-7402(1)(b) (West 2004)), titled "Safety Requirements for Railroad Operations," provides in pertinent part as follows:

"It is unlawful for a rail carrier to permit any train, railroad car or engine to obstruct public travel at a railroadhighway grade crossing for a period in excess of 10 minutes, except where such train or railroad car is continuously moving or cannot be moved by reason of circumstances over which the rail carrier has no reasonable control.

* * * Under no circumstances will a moving train be stopped for the purposes of issuing a citation related to this Section." 625 ILCS 5/18c-7402(1)(b) (West 2004).

The record reflects that on January 17, 2005, defendant was issued a citation for violating the Village's ordinance by blocking the highway grade crossing at Hawley Street in the Village for 157 minutes. On March 31, 2005, defendant filed an offer of proof in support of its argument that it was not guilty. In its offer of proof, defendant argued that it did not violate the ordinance, because the train was stopped at the crossing for reasons beyond its reasonable control. Defendant also argued that enforcement of the Village's ordinance was preempted by the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (the ICCTA) (49 U.S.C. § 10101 et seq. (2000)) and by the FRSA (49 U.S.C. § 20101 et seq. (2000 & Supp. II 2002)). On April 6, 2005, the Village filed its response to defendant's offer of proof, and on April 22, 2005, the trial court conducted a bench trial.

The parties stipulated that defendant's train blocked the crossing for the duration of time indicated in the citation. Defendant proceeded with the testimony of Bernard Kareka, the conductor of defendant's train. Kareka's testimony reflected that, on January 17, 2005, he was operating defendant's train through the Village. The train consisted of 3 locomotive engines and 119 cars and had been stopped in Lake Villa for approximately three to four hours prior to Kareka and an engineer's arrival. The crew that was to bring the train through the Village consisted of Kareka and the engineer. The crew had boarded the train earlier in the morning at Lake Villa, where the train had been secured by the previous crew. Kareka testified that, when he boarded the train at Lake Villa, the previous crew had left a note on the train, indicating that they had problems with the air brakes on the train. Kareka testified that the previous conductor had also fixed a couple of air leaks on the train and changed the gaskets between the air hoses.

Kareka's testimony further reflected that he looked over the first head cars of the train to locate hand brakes, and the engineer looked over the locomotives. The crew then conducted a job briefing, reviewed paperwork, and made sure any cars containing hazardous material were properly placed in the train. The crew also conducted an air brake test called a "set and release test" and verified that the air pressure on the rear of the train was within 15 pounds of the pressure on the front of the train. Kareka explained that federal regulations require verification that brakes are in operating order when an engineer boards a locomotive. He further explained that, as a crew taking over a train already en route, they were not required to perform any tests beyond what they did nor were they required to conduct an inspection of the entire length of the train.

The train departed Lake Villa and headed south toward the Village. As the train was approaching the Village, the crew received an indication from a "hot box" detector that there was dragging equipment on the rear car of the train. In accordance with defendant's operating procedures, the engineer began to slow the train, intending to stop the train and investigate. At that point, though, the train experienced a sudden loss of air pressure, which caused the emergency brakes to apply on each car on the train. The crew tried to restore air pressure, but the end-of-train indicator showed that the air brake system pressure on the rear of the train would not come up.

Kareka departed the lead locomotive and began walking the length of the train to inspect the train. During his inspection, Kareka discovered that an angle cock was out of position on a car approximately five or six cars forward from the 76th car. He explained that an angle cock is a valve that regulates the flow of air through the train's brake line in each car. Kareka opined that the problem with the angle cock could have been caused by sabotage, by debris that may have knocked the valve out of position while the train was in motion, or by vibration. Kareka further opined that, when the engineer applied a minimum amount of brake pressure when the train began to pass through the Village, it was possible that the brakes applied in the front portion of the train but, due to the angle cock being out of position, not in the rear portion of the train. The effect would have been that the rear portion ran into the front portion. Kareka straightened the angle cock on the car.

When Kareka reached the 76th car of the train, he discovered that a "drawbar," a connecting bar between train cars, had failed and fallen off on the rear end of the 76th car. Kareka testified that a drawbar breaking would cause an emergency brake application. He also noticed that, when the drawbar broke off, it fell under the next couple of cars in the train, damaging the hose on the following car. Kareka testified that the train had broken into two sections. Kareka testified that the crew had no reason to think that the air pressure would not be working once the air test performed that morning in Lake Villa had been successful.

Upon assessing the damage, the crew situated the rear of the train just north of Dunbar Road in the Village and brought the rest of the train, including the car with the failed drawbar, south to set out and leave the defective car on a spur track. They then reversed the train, and the engineer shoved it back to reconnect with the rear part still sitting north of Dunbar Road. During this time, no crossings were obstructed.

Next, the crew began the process of tying the train back together and conducting required brake tests so that the train could proceed to Schiller Park. With the train reconnected, the crew checked the brake system air pressure, but the brake pressure on the rear of the train was not restored to an acceptable level required for departure. Again, Kareka inspected the train, checking for leaks in the air brake system. A crew on another train on an adjoining track assisted in inspecting the train and looking for leaks. During this inspection, the train was blocking Hawley Street in the Village. The crew ultimately cut the train, or broke it apart, twice to allow passengers on and off a Metra train at the Village's train station. Upon cutting the train, the forward portion had proper air pressure. When the train was cut the second time, the railroad dispatcher directed the crew to take the forward portion to Schiller Park. Another train came by, and its crew tied up and took the remaining portion to Schiller Park.

Following the arguments of the parties, the trial court found that the enforcement of the Village's ordinance was not preempted by federal law and regulations. The trial court further found that the circumstances resulting in the blockage of the grade crossing were within defendant's reasonable control. The trial court found that, if the crew had conducted a visual inspection of the train prior to leaving Lake Villa, they may have discovered the angle cock being out of position. The trial court also noted that the train had been idle for several hours before the new crew took it over in Lake Villa, that there was a report of issues with the air brakes, and that no visual inspection was conducted. The trial court believed that such an inspection could have identified the problem, which the trial court concluded was a circumstance within defendant's control. In finding defendant guilty of violating the ordinance, the trial court fined defendant $14,000 plus costs. Defendant timely appeals.

The contentions that defendant raises on appeal are (1) that enforcement of the Village's ordinance is preempted by the FRSA (49 U.S.C. § 20101 et seq. (2000 & Supp. II 2002)), and (2) that the trial court, in finding that defendant should have conducted...