# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 13 73

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

So o Li ne Rai lro ad Co m

pa ny, a Min ne so ta co rp or at io n, d oi ng bu si ne ss as Can ad ia n P aci fic

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

W ern er En te rp ris es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 22 , 20 15
Fil ed : J un e 7 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

A tru ck dr i v e n by a W ern er Ent erp ris es (Werner ) em pl oyee st ru ck a tra in

op erat ed by So o Li n e R a il ro ad Co m pa ny, do in g bu si ne ss as Can ad ia n Paci fic

Thi s o pi ni on is be in g fi le d b y Ju dg e Woll m an an d J ud ge Grue nd er p ur su an t 1

to 8t h C ir. R

ul e 4 7E.(Can ad ia n P a c i f i c), cau si ng a ta nk er car to sp il l th e ch em ic al it was carr y in g.

Can ad ia n Paci fic su ed We r n er fo r th e cl ean -u p co st s un de r th eo rie s of tre sp as s,

nu is an ce, an d ne gl ig en ce. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to W ern er 2

on th e tre sp as s an d nu is an ce cl ai m s, an d th e cas e pr oc eed ed to tri al on th e ne gl ig en ce
cl ai m

. The jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t fo r W ern er, an d th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Can ad ia n
Paci fic ’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w or fo r a ne w tri al

. Can ad ia n Paci fic

ap p e a l s , arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t on it s

tre sp as s an d nu is an ce cl ai m s, in de nyi n g it s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, in

de nyin g i ts po st -tr ia l m ot io n, an d i n i ns tru ct in g t he jury. W e aff irm. 3

I.

At ap pr ox im a t e l y 3 : 2 0 a.m

. on Mar ch 31

, 20 12

, Dale Bu zzel l was dr iv in g a

W ern er-o wne d tru ck no rth bo un d on U.S. Hig hwa y 59 to ward Pl um m er, Mi nn es ot a.

At th e sa m e ti m e, a tra in op erat ed by Can ad ia n Paci fic

, whi ch co ns is te d of so m e 10 6

cars an d a he ad -en d an d a tra il in g lo co m ot iv e, was in th e pr oc es s of swit ch in g from

on e tr ack to an ot he r in or de r to m ak e ro om fo r an ot he r tra in he ad ed in th e o pp os it e
di rect io n. The tra ck th at th e tra in was swi tc hi ng to in te rs ect ed wit h Hig hwa y 59

. As

th e tra in ap pr oa ch ed th e in te rs ect io n, it was tra ve li ng at ap pr ox im at el y fiv e m il es pe r
ho ur to th e s o u t h e a s t, an d it s en gi ne er so un de d th e tra in ’s ho rn m ul ti pl e ti m es to

si gn al th e tra in ’s pr es en ce at th e in te rs ect io n. The in te rs ect io n was e q u i pp ed wit h

cro ss in g- gu ard si gn al s, whi ch be ga n fla sh in g as th e tra in ap pr oa ch ed th e in te rs ect io n,

an d th e lo co m ot iv e was eq ui pp ed wit h two se ts of he ad li gh ts th at il lu m in at ed th e area

ah ead of t he tra in for

ap pr ox im at el y

on e-h al f m il e.

The Hon or ab le Dav id S. Dot y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 2

Mi nn es ot a.

W e gr an t Can ad ia n Paci fic ’s m ot io n to su pp le m en t th e reco r d w i th th e 3

red act ed ve rs io n o f Dr. Tho m as You ng ’s dep os it io n t ran sc rip t.

-2

-So ut h of th e hi gh way -rai lro ad in te rs ect io n, Hig hwa y 59 cu rv es sl ig ht ly to th e

rig h t f o r n or th bo un d dr iv ers an d st rai gh te ns ou t ap pr ox im at el y 53 5 feet fro m th e

in te rs ect io n. Bu zzel l su cces sf ul l y n a v ig at ed th e cu rv e le ad in g to th e rai lro ad

cro ss in g, bu t di d no t slo w do wn afte r th e cu rv e. He st ru ck th e n in th car o f th e tra in

at ap pr ox im at el y fif

ty-fiv e m il es pe r ho ur , de rai li ng th e tra in an d pu n ct ur in g th e

ta nk er car, whi ch sp i l le d aro m at ic co nc en tra te (a 50 % be nz en e so lu ti on ) on th e

gr ou nd

. Bu zzel l’s tru ck cau gh t fi re, cau si ng Bu zzel l to di e fro m sm ok e in ha la ti on

.

Em erg en cy re s p o nd ers ex ti ng ui sh ed th e fir e us in g ch em ic al fo am an d wate r.
The tra in ’s en gi ne er, con du ct or , an d a su pe rin te nd en t for Can ad ia n Paci fic tes ti fie d

th at th ey ob se rv ed sk id m ark s lead in g up to th e in te rs ect io n, in di cat in g th at Bu zzel l

ha d at te m

pt ed to swe rv e to av oi d th e c o l l i s i on

. St at e po li ce co m pl et ed a fat al it y

rep or t an d an acci de nt reco ns tru ct io n rep or t. The reco ns tru ct io n rep or t no te d no sk id

m ark s or ot he r ev id en ce th at Bu zzel l ha d at te m pt ed to av oi d th e co ll is io n. Dr. Mar k
Kop on en , th e m ed ic al ex am in er who pe rfo rm ed Bu zzel l’s au to ps y , co nc lu de d th at he

di ed fro m sm ok e in ha la ti on so on aft er th e co ll is io n. The au to ps y fu rth er rev eal ed th at

Bu zzel l’s he art ex hi bi te d si gn s th at a bl oo d cl ot ha d ob st ru ct ed th e bl o o d flo w in

Bu zzel l’s rig ht co ro na ry art ery, whi ch in dica te d th e be gi nn in g st ag es of a he art at ta ck

. Dr. Kop on en te st ifi ed th at th e bl o od cl ot oc cu rred be fo re th e co ll is io n an d th at it

co ul d ha ve cau se d Bu zzel l to be co m e in cap aci ta te d, bu t t h a t h e m ig ht no t ha ve

ex pe rie nc ed sym

pt om s be fo re be co m in g in cap a c i t a t ed

. Afte r ru li ng ou t ot he r

po ss ib le cau s e s of th e acci de nt

, in cl ud in g th e po ss ib il it y th at th e tru ck ha d

ex pe rie nc ed a m ech an ic al fai lu re, th at Bu zzel l ha d co m m it te d su ic id e, or th at Bu zzel l

ha d be en di st ract ed or ha d fal le n as le ep , Dr. Kop on en co nc lu de d th at th e “ to ta li ty of

th e ev id en ce” in di cat ed th at th e co ll is io n was cau se d by Bu zzel l’s ex pe rie nc in g “ an

acu te card ia c ev en t wh ic h l ed to hi s i na bi li ty to co nt ro l h is m ot or ve hi cl e.”

Can ad ia n Paci fic in cu rred co st s of $7 .76 m i l l i o n i n cl ean in g th e ha zard ou s

m at eri al s fro m th e acci de nt si te

. Afte r W ern er refu se d a req ue st fo r in de m ni fic at io n,

C an ad ia n Paci fic br ou gh t su it

, al le gi ng th at W ern er was vi cari ou sl y li ab le fo r th e

-3

-da m ag es cau se d by Bu zzel l’s ne gl ig en ce an d di rect ly li ab l e fo r it s ne gl ig en t

su pe rv is io n and ret en ti on of Bu zzel l. Can ad ia n Paci fic la te r am en de d it s com pl ai nt

to in cl ud e n ui sa nc e an d t res pa ss cla im s.

Befo re th e pa rti es co m

pl et ed di sc ov ery, Can ad ia n Paci fic m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on al l of it s cl ai m s, arg ui ng th at Bu zzel l vi ol at ed st at e tra ffi c la ws req ui rin g
dr iv ers to y ie ld to tra in s at a cro ss in g an d th at th e st at e-l aw vi ol at io n co ns ti tu te d pe r

se ne gl ig en ce. The di st ric t co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io n, h ol di ng th at vi ol at io ns of st at e

tra ffi c la ws are on ly pr ima fa ci e ev id en ce of ne gl ig en ce an d th at ge nu in e di sp ut es of

m at eri al fact rem ai ne d wit h res pe ct to each of Can ad ia n Paci fic ’s cl ai m s. At th e cl os e

of di sc ov ery, W ern er m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on al l cl a i ms, arg ui ng th at

Can ad ia n Paci fic ha d no t pr es en te d ev id en ce su ffi ci en t to sa ti sf y al l of th e ne ces sa ry
el em en ts of it s tre sp as s an d nu is an ce cl ai m s an d th at W ern er’s ev id en ce th at Bu zzel l

was m ed ic al ly in cap aci ta te d at th e ti m e of th e acci de nt w a s s u f fic ie nt to de feat

Can ad ia n P aci fic ’s neg li ge nc e cl ai m

. Can ad ia n Paci fic res po nd ed th at Depa rtment

of Tran sp or ta ti on (DOT) reg ul at io ns pr om ul ga te d un de r au th or it y gr an te d by th e
Fed eral Mo to r Carr ie r Safe ty Act o f 1 9 8 4 § 20 6 (FM CSA), 49 U.S.C. § 31 13 6,

pr eem pt ed W ern er’s st at e-l aw su dd en -in cap aci ta ti on de fen se

. The di st ri c t c o ur t

gr an te d W ern er’s m ot io n on th e nu is an ce an d tre sp as s cl ai m s an d de ni ed W ern er’s

m ot io n wit h res pe ct to th e ne gl ig en ce cl ai m

. It reject ed Can ad ia n Paci fic ’s

p r e em pt io n arg um en t, bu t co nc lu de d th at th ere rem ai ne d a ge nu in e di sp ut e o v e r
whe th er Bu zzel l was ne gl ig en t.

The pa rti es di d no t di sp ut e th e am ou nt of da m ag es , so th e tri al was li m it ed to

th e is su e of li ab il it y

. Can ad i a n P a c ifi c pr oc eed ed on it s cl ai m th at Bu zzel l was

ne gl ig en t in hi s dr iv in g an d in hi s fai lu re to rep or t f at ig ue to hi s DOT-li cen si ng ph y si ci an

. Bo th W ern er a n d Can ad ia n Paci fic in tro du ced ex pe rt te st im on y , wit h

W ern er’s ex pe rts su pp or ti ng th e su dd en -in ca pa ci ta ti on de fen se an d Can ad ia n
Paci fic ’s ex pe rts co nc lu di ng th at it was im po ss ib le to ru le o u t a l t e rn at iv e

ex pl an at io ns , su ch as d riv er fa ti gu e o r di st ract io n.

-4

-The pa rti es al so di sp ut ed th e si gn ifi can ce of Bu zzel l’s m ed ic al reco rd s, whi ch

in cl ud ed a di ag no si s of “ fat ig ue ” in hi s pr im ary c a r e d o c to r’s pr og res s no te s fro m Aug us t 13

, 20 10

, Sep te m be r 20 10

, an d Decem

be r 20 11 ; la b res ul ts fro m a bl oo d te st

or de red be cau se of th e fat ig ue di ag no si s; a li st of m ed ic at io ns in di cat in g th at Bu zzel l

to ok vi ta m in su pp le m en ts fo r fat ig ue ; an d reh ab il it at io n- cen te r pr og res s no te s from

Ja nu ary 2 01 2 no ti ng th at Bu zzel l ha d di ffi cu lt y sl eep in g on hi s le ft si de be cau se of

pa in in hi s le ft sh ou ld er. Non e of Bu zzel l’s m ed ic al reco rd s, ho wev er, in di cat ed th at

Bu zzel l h a d b e e n d ia gn os ed wit h a sl eep di so rd er, no r di d th ey pr ov id e co nt ex t fo r
whe th er hi s fat ig ue di ag no si s affe ct ed hi s ab il it y to dr iv e. Can a d ia n Paci fic

in t ro du ced a m ed ic al qu es ti on na ire fro m Bu zzel l’s Aug us t 3, 20 10

, DOT-req ui red

dr iv er-f it ne ss ex am in at io n, in whi ch Bu zzel l in di cat ed th at he di d n o t ex pe rie nc e

fai nt in g, di zzi ne ss , “ sl eep di so r d e rs , pa us es in br eat hi ng whi le as le ep , da y ti m e
sl eep in es s, [ o r ] lo ud sn or in g.” Can ad ia n Paci fic pr es en te d te st im on y fro m an

oc cu pa ti on al m ed ic al ph y si ci an , who te st ifi ed th at Bu zzel l vi ol at ed fed eral

reg ul at io ns by fai li ng to rep or t to th e DOT th at hi s pr im ary care ph y si ci an di ag no se d

hi m wit h fat ig ue on Aug us t 13

, 20 10

, an d th at Bu zzel l vi ol at ed th e reg ul at io ns by

de nyin g h av in g a sl eep di so rd er d ur in g h is dri ve r-fi tn es s m ed ic al ex am in at io n wi th

a DOT ph y si ci an te n d a ys e a r l i er. W ern er pr es en te d te st im on y ch al le ng in g th e

accu racy of Bu zzel l’s m ed ic al reco rd s, hi gh li gh ti ng th at th ey di d no t pr ov id e co nt ex t

fo r whe th er hi s fat ig ue di ag no si s affe c te d hi s ab il it y to dr iv e, an d as se rti ng th at

Bu zzel l’s fa ti gu e d ia gn os is di d n ot co ns ti tu te a sl eep di so rd er.

The jury in di cat ed on it s sp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm th at Bu zzel l was no t ne gl ig en t in

op erat in g hi s tru ck an d th at he was no t “ ne gl ig en t in fai li ng to rep or t fat ig ue to hi s [DOT] -li cen si ng ph y si ci an an d t o Wern er En te rp ris es .”

Can ad ia n Paci fic th en m ov ed fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w or fo r a ne w tri al

,
arg ui ng th at W ern er ha d no t pr es en te d su ffi ci en t e v i d e n ce to su pp or t it s su dd en

in cap aci ta ti on de fen se , th at th e ev id en ce pe rm it te d on ly th e co nc lu si on th at Bu zzel l

n e g li ge nt ly fai le d to rep or t a fat ig ue di ag no si s, an d th at th e di st ric t co u r t h a d

-5

-im

pr op erl y de ni ed it s pe r se ne gl ig en ce i n s t r u c ti on fo r vi ol at io ns of fed eral

reg ul at io ns . The d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io n, an d t hi s ap pe al fol lo wed

.

II.

A. Tresp as s an d Nu is an ce Cl ai m s

Can ad ia n Paci fic ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to

W ern er on Can ad ia n Paci fic ’s tre sp as s an d nu is an ce cl ai m s. “ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t

co ur t’s gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi e w i n g t h e reco rd in th e li gh t m os t

fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g pa rty an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in th at

pa rty’ s fa vo r.” Bi sh op v. Glazi er, 723 F.3 d 95 7, 96 0- 61 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3) . Sum m ary jud gm en t is pr op er if “ th ere is no ge nu in e d i s pu te as to an y m at eri al fact an d th e

m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a). In gr an ti ng

su m m ary jud gm en t on Can ad ia n Paci fic ’s tre sp as s cl ai m , th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d

th at Can ad ia n Paci fic ha d no t pr es en te d an y ev id en ce th at Bu zzel l act ed wit h t he

req ui si te in te nt

. Fo r th e nu is an ce cl ai m , th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at a si ng le act

can no t co ns ti tu te a nu is an ce u nd er Mi nn es ot a la w.

Can ad ia n Paci fic arg ue s th at it pr es en te d a d e qu at e ev id en ce to su rv iv e

su m m ary jud gm en t on it s tre sp as s cl ai m be cau se it sh owe d th at Bu zzel l in te nt io na ll y

hi d hi s fat ig ue di ag no si s fro m hi s DOT ph y si ci an

. Und er Mi nn es ot a la w, “ a tre sp as s
is co m m it te d whe re a p l a in ti ff ha s th e ‘righ t of po ss es si on ’ to th e la nd at is su e an d

th ere is a ‘w ro ng fu l an d un la wfu l en t r y u p o n su ch po ss es si on by de fen da nt .’ ”

Jo hn so n v. Paynes vi ll e Farm ers Uni on Co op

. Oil Co

., 81 7 N.W .2d 69 3, 70 1 (Mi nn

. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng All Am

. Fo od s, In c. v. Co un ty of Ait ki n, 26 6 N.W .2d 70 4, 70 5 (Mi nn

. 19 78 )). Tres pa ss is an in te nt io na l to rt an d req ui res th at “ a pe rs on ‘int en ti on al ly en te rs

. . . th e la nd in po ss es si on of an ot he r.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Dan B. Dob bs

, The Law of Tort s § 50

, at 95 (2 00 0) ). Can ad ia n Paci fic do es no t arg ue t h a t B u z z e l l en te red th e

in te rs e c t io n in te nt io na ll y , an d it s th eo ry th at Bu zzel l in te nt io na ll y hi d a fat ig ue

-6

-d i a gn os is

, ev en if tru e, was in su ffi ci en t to m ak e ou t a tre sp as s cl ai m

. The di st r i c t

co ur t t hu s p ro pe rly gran te d s um m ary jud gm en t t o Wern er o n t ha t cl ai m

.

Can ad ia n Paci fic arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in it s in te rp re t a ti on of

Mi nn es ot a nu is an ce la w. W ern er res po nd s th at th e qu es ti on whe th er a si ng le act can

co ns ti tu te a nu is an ce is irr el ev an t in li gh t of th e jury’ s fi nd in g t ha t Bu zzel l was no t

ne gl ig en t. In Mi nn es ot a, nu is an ce is a st at ut or y of fen se

. Mi nn

. St at

. § 56 1.0 1
(“ Anythi ng whi ch is in

juri ou s to he al th

, or in de cen t or of fen si ve to th e se ns es , or an

o b s t r u c ti on to th e free us e of pr op ert y , so as to in te rfer e wit h th e co m fo rta bl e

en joy m en t of li fe or pr op ert y , is a nu is an ce.”)

. The Mi n n es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t ha s

in te rp ret ed th e st at ut e to req ui re th at “ th ere m us t be so m e ki nd of co nd uc t cau si ng th e

nu is an ce ha rm whi ch is ‘w ro ng fu l.’” Hig hv ie w N. Apa rtments v. Co un ty of Ram se y , 32 3 N.W .2d 65

, 7 0- 71 (Mi nn

. 19 82 ) (q uo ti ng Ran da ll v. Vil l. of Exc el si or , 10 3

N.W .2d 13 1, 13 4 (Mi nn

. 19 60 )). In W en di ng er v. Fo rs t Farm s, Inc., the Mi nn es ot a

C o u r t of App eal s co nc lu de d th at th e wro ng fu l-c on du ct req ui rem en t was m ean t “ to

li m it th e sc op e of nu is an ce lia bi li ty to si tu at io ns in whi ch th e de fen da nt can be sai d

to be at fau lt ,” an d th a t t h e req ui si te fau lt in cl ud ed “ in te nt io na l ha rm s an d ha rm s

cau se d by ne gl ig en ce, [o r] reck le ss or ul tra ha zard ou s co nd uc t.” 662 N

. W .2d 54 6, 55 1
(Mi nn . C t. App . 2 00 3) (q uo ti ng Ran da ll , 1 03 N.W .2d at 13 4)

. Bec au se ne gl ig en ce

was th e on ly po te nt ia l ba si s of wro ng fu l co nd uc t th at was pr es en te d t o t h e jury, it s

fin di ng th at Bu zzel l was no t ne gl ig en t is fat al to Can ad ia n Paci fic ’s nu is an ce cl ai m

.

B. Negl ig en ce Cl ai m

Can ad ia n Paci fic arg ue s th at reg ul at or y vi ol at io ns co ns ti tu te ne gl ig en ce pe r se

un de r Mi nn es ot a la w rat he r th an on ly pr ima fa ci e ev id en ce of ne gl ig en ce an d th at th e

reg ul at io ns pro m

ul ga te d u nd er t he FMCS A pre em pt st at e-l aw de fen se s.

The di st ric t co ur t he ld th at vi ol at io ns of FMC SA reg ul at io ns were pr ima fa ci e

ev id en c e o f n e g li ge nc e rat he r th an ne gl ig en ce pe r se

. Und er Mi nn es ot a la w,

-7

-v i o l a t i o ns of st at e tra ffi c la ws are pr ima fa ci e ev id en ce of ne gl ig en ce. Mi nn

. St a t

.

§ 16 9.9 6( b) (“ In al l ci vi l act io ns , a vi ol at io n of any of th e pr ov is io ns of th is ch ap te r

. . . sh al l no t be n e g l i g e n c e p er se bu t sh al l be pr ima fa ci e ev id en ce of ne gl ig en ce

on ly.”). Alt ho ug h th e st at ut e refe rs on ly to vi ol at io ns un de r Ch ap te r 16 9, Mi nn es ot a

co ur ts ha ve ex te nd ed th e ru le to vi ol at io ns of FMC SA reg ul at io ns

. Ru hl an d v. Sm it h,

Nos

. C7 -9 1- 66 8, C4 -9 1- 67 5, 19 91 W L 25 79 62

, at *3 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. Dec. 10

, 19 91 )
(“ It wou ld be an om al ou s t o d iff eren ti at e b et ween tra ffi c vi ol at io ns oc cu rri ng un de r

Mi nn es ot a la w an d th o s e oc cu rri ng un de r fed eral la w.”). Ass um in g th at Can ad ia n
Paci fic pr es erv e d i t s n eg li ge nc e- pe r

- se arg um en t an d th at it was co rrec t ab ou t th e

pr op er sta nd ard

, it ne ve rth el es s wou ld no t hav e be en en ti tl ed to su m m ary jud gm en t

be cau se a ge nu in e di sp ut e of m at eri al fact ex is te d ov er w h e t h er Bu zzel l was

in cap aci ta te d at th e ti m e of th e acci d e n t

. S e e S ei m v. Garav al ia

, 30 6 N.W .2d 80 6,

81 0 (M in n. 1 98 1) (“ [N]egl ig en ce pe r s e is no t l ia bi li ty pe r s e .”).

C an ad ia n Paci fic arg ue s th at th e reg ul at io ns pr om ul ga te d un de r th e F M C S A

pr eem pt Mi nn es ot a’s sudd en -i nc ap ac ita tio n de fen se

. Tho se reg ul at io ns pr ov id e ru le s

fo r th e co m

m erci al tru ck in g in du st ry th a t a r e i nt en de d to pr om ot e hi gh way sa fet y

. Und er th e reg ul at io ns , a dr iv er m us t su bm it to a ph y si cal ex am ev ery two y ears fro m

a DOT-cert ifi ed ph y si ci an , du rin g whi ch he m us t se lf- rep or t an y m ed ic al co nd it io ns

an d th erea fte r, whi le on du ty, carr y hi s “ m ed ic al ex am in er’s cert ifi cat e th at he

. . . is
ph y si cal ly qu al ifi ed to dr iv e a co m m erci al m ot or ve hi cl e.” 49 C.F.R. § § 39 1.4 1( a),

39 1.4 2, 39 1.4 5. Driv ers wit h cert ai n di ag no se d he art , r es pi rat or y , o r m en ta l he al th

co nd it io ns th at wou ld in te rfer e wit h th e dr iv er’s ab il it y to op erat e a co m m ercial m ot or

ve hi cl e are no t co ns i de red qu al ifi ed

. Id

. § 39 1.4 1( b)

. Fu rth er, th e reg ul at io ns

pr oh ib it co m

m erci al dr iv ers fro m dr iv in g whi le fat ig ue d. Id

. § 3 9 2

. 3

. Des pi te th e

FMC S A ’s b r oa d hi gh way -s afet y pu rp os e, Co ng res s di d no t in te nd th at it pr eem pt

st at e la w m or e th an n e c e s s a ry

. See 49 U.S.C. § 31 13 6( c)(2 )(B) (req ui rin g th e

Secr et ary of Tran sp or ta ti on to m in im iz e th e ex te nt to whi ch th e de pa rtment’s

reg ul at io ns pr eem

pt st at e la w). Acco rd in gl y , th e reg ul at io ns pe rm it ap pl ic at io n of

s t a te la w whe n th e fed eral st at ut e an d reg ul at io ns are si le nt

. 49 C.F.R. § 3 9 0

. 9

-8

-(“ Exc ep t as ot he rwis e sp eci fic al ly in di cat ed

, su bc ha pt er B of th is ch ap te r is no t

in te nd ed to pr ecl ud e St at es or su bd iv is io ns th ere o f f ro m es ta bl is hi ng or en fo rci ng

St at e o r lo cal la ws rel at in g to sa fet y , t he co m pl ia nc e wit h wh ic h wo ul d n ot pre ve nt

fu ll co m pl ia nc e wit h t he se reg ul at io ns by the pe rs on su bjec t t he ret o.” ).

Fed eral pr eem

pt io n of st at e la w can oc c u r “t hr ou gh ex pr es s la ng ua ge in a

st a t u t e,” or “ th ro ug h ‘fiel d’ p re-e m pt io n or ‘con fli ct ’ pr e-em pt io n.” One ok , I nc . v

. Learjet

, In c., 13 5 S. Ct

. 15 91

, 15 95 (2 01 5)

. Fi el d pr eem pt io n oc cu rs whe re

“ Co ng res s

. . . in te nd ed ‘to fo recl os e an y st at e reg ul at io n in th e ar ea
, ’ irr es pe ct iv e of

whe th er st at e la w is co ns is te nt or in co ns is te nt wit h ‘feder al st an da rd s.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng

Ariz on a v. Uni te d St at es , 13 2 S. Ct

. 24 92

, 25 02 (2 01 2) ). Co nf li ct pr eem pt io n oc cu rs
whe re ei th er “ co m

pl ia nc e wit h bo th st at e an d fed eral la w is im po ss ib le ” or “ th e st at e

la w ‘stan ds as an ob st acl e to th e acco m pl is hm en t an d ex ecu ti on of th e fu ll pu rp os es

an d ob jecti ve s of Co ng res s.’” Id . ( qu ot in g Cal ifo rn ia v. ARC Am . C or p., 49 0 U.S.

93

, 10 0, 10 1 (1 98 9) ). “ W ha t is a su ffi ci en t ob st acl e i s a mat t er of jud gm en t, to be

in fo rm ed by ex am in in g th e fed eral st at ut e as a who le an d id en ti fy in g it s pu rp os e an d

in te nd ed effe ct s.” Cro sb y v. Nat’l Fo rei gn Trad e Co un ci l, 53 0 U.S. 36 3, 37 3 (2 00 0)

. W he n de te rm in in g whe th er fed eral la w pr eem pt s st at e-l aw cau se s of act io n, we “ st art

wit h th e as su m

pt io n th at th e h i s t or ic po li ce po wers of th e St at es were no t to be

su pe rs ed ed by th e F e d e r al Act un le ss th at was th e cl ear an d m an ife st pu rp os e of

Co ng res s.” In re Aur or a Dair y Co rp . Or ga ni c Mi lk Mk tg . & Sal es Prac ti ces Lit ig

., 62 1 F .3d 78 1, 79 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Med tro ni c, In c. v. Loh r, 51 8 U.S. 47 0,

48 5 (1 99 6) ).

Ca na dia n Pa ci fi c arg ue s th at se ct io n 39 2.2 of th e FMC SA reg ul ation s ex pr es sly

pr eem pt s th e su dd en -in cap aci ta ti on de fen se by pr ov id in g th at “ if a reg ul at io n of th e
Fed eral Mo to r Carr ie r Safe ty Adm in is tra ti on im po se s a hi gh er st an da rd of care th an

th at la w, or di na nc e or reg ul at io n, th e Fed eral Mo to r Carr ie r Safe ty A d mini st rat io n

reg ul at io n m

us t be co m

pl ie d wit h.” 49 C.F.R. § 39 2.2

. Can a d i a n P a ci fic fu rth er

arg ue s th at th e FMC SA reg ul at io ns pr eem pt th e su dd en -in cap aci ta ti on de fen se

-9

-b e c au se th ey oc cu py th e fie ld of co m m erci al -d riv er sa fet y

. Bu t th e su dd e n

in cap aci ta ti on de fen se is a de fen se , no t a “ st an da rd of c are,” an d t hu s s ect io n 39 2.2

do es no t ap pl y

. Mo reo ve r, in li gh t of Co ng res s’s ex pr es s in te nt to av oi d pr eem pt io n

of st at e la w, 49 U.S.C. § 31 13 6( c)(2 )(B) ; se e al so 49 C.F.R. § 39 0.9

, we co nc lu de th at

th e FMC SA reg ul at io ns do no t fo recl os e st at e-l aw de fen se s t o n eg li ge nc e cl ai m s.

Can ad ia n Paci fic arg ue s th at Mi nn es ot a’s su dd en -in cap aci ta ti on de fen se

co nf l i c t s wit h th e FMC SA’s pu rp os e of pr om ot in g ro ad way sa fet y by u nd erm in in g

th e reg ul at io ns ’ pr ev en ti ve m eas ur es

. Bu t t he su dd en -in cap aci ta ti on de fen se is no t

an ob st acl e to th e FMC SA’s pu rp os e an d effe ct s be cau se th e FMC SA is in te nd ed to

re duc e pr ev en ta

ble hig hw ay ac ci de nts

, and th e su dd en -in cap aci ta ti on de fen se ex cu se s

on ly un fo res eeab le in cap aci ta ti on

. See Luk e v. Ci ty of Ano ka

, 15 1 N.W .2d 42 9, 43 4
(Mi nn . 19 67 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at “ no pe rs on

. . . m ay be he ld li ab le fo r an acci de nt

. . . whi ch co ul d no t ha ve be en reas o n a b ly fo res een or pr ev en te d by th e ex erci se of

reas on ab le care ”). Can ad ia n Paci fic as se rts th at Luk e do es no t ap pl y be cau se it he ld

dr iv ers on ly to t h e r e as on ab le -car e st an da rd

, whi le th e FMC SA im po se s a hi gh er

st an da rd of care , req ui rin g co m m erci al dr iv ers to m it ig at e t h e r i s ks of m ed ic al

em erg en ci es

. Reg ard le ss of th e st an da rd of care , ho wev er, su dd en -in cap aci ta ti on is

av ai la bl e as a de fen se an d d oe s n ot in te rfer e wit h t he FMCS A’ s p ur po se s.

Can ad ia n Paci fic arg ue s th at it is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w on it s

ne gl ig en ce cl ai m be cau se W ern er di d no t pr es en t ev id en ce su ffi ci en t fo r a reas on ab le
ju r y to co nc lu de th at Bu zzel l was su dd en ly in cap aci ta te d. W e rev ie w de no v o t h e
di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w. Lee ex re l. Lee v.

Bo rd ers , 76 4 F.3 d 96 6, 97 1 (8 t h C i r

. 2 0 1 4)

. “ In rev ie win g th e su ffi ci en cy of th e

ev id en ce to su pp or t th e jury’ s ve rd ic t, we in te rp ret th e reco rd in a li gh t m os t fav or ab le

to th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty, affirming un le ss no reas on ab le juro r co ul d hav e reac he d th e

sa m e co nc lu si on .” Ja ck so n v. Ci ty of Hot Sp rin gs , 75 1 F.3 d 85 5, 86 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 )
(q uo ti ng Str uc tu ral Po lym er Grp ., Lt d. v. Zo lt ek Co rp ., 54 3 F .3d 98 7, 9 91 (8t h C ir.

20 08 )). W ern er i nt ro du ced th e ex pe rt tes ti m on y of Dr. Sh an no n M ack ey -Bo jack , a

-1 0-card io va s c u l a r pa th ol og is t, an d, as earl ie r se t fo rth

, Dr. Kop on en , th e m ed ic al

ex am in er who pe rfo rm ed th e au to ps y on Bu zzel l’s bo dy. Bo th do ct or s co nc lu de d th at

Bu zzel l su ffer ed fro m “ an acu te card ia c ev en t” th at cau se d hi m to lo se co ns ci ou sn es s,
whi ch ul ti m at el y cau se d th e tru ck he was dr iv in g to co ll id e wit h th e tra in

. In reac hi ng

th at co nc lu si on , bo th te s t i f i e d th at

, aft er ta ki ng in to acco un t th e st at e’s acci de nt

reco ns tru ct io n rep or t an d ot he r av ai la bl e do cu m e n t s , th ey ha d ru le d ou t ot he r

po te nt ia l ex pl an at io ns fo r th e co ll is io n, in cl ud in g m ech an ic al fai lu re, su ic id e,
di st ract i o n , an d dr iv er fat ig ue

. W ern er al so in tro du ced ex pe rt te st im on y fro m Ken

Drev ni ck

, an acci de nt reco ns truc tio nis t, w ho te sti fi ed tha t in cap aci ta ti on was th e m os t

li ke ly cau se of th e co l l i s i o n

. In reac hi ng th at co nc lu si on , Drev ni ck rev ie wed th e

m ed ic al ex am in er’s rep or t an d th e st at e tro op er’s in ve st ig at io n rep or t an d op in ed th at

Bu zzel l d id no t app ly th e tru ck ’s br ak es be fo re hit ti ng th e tra in

, th at it was un li ke ly

th at wate r or fir efi gh ti n g f oa m wou ld was h away sk id m ark s, an d th at su dd en

in cap aci ta ti on was th e on ly pl au si bl e ex pl an at io n fo r th e co ll i s i o n

. Can ad ia n
Paci fic ’s ex pe rts co nc lu de d th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to ru le ou t al te rn at iv e

ex pl an at io ns an d th at th ere co ul d ha ve be en s k i d mar ks in di cat in g a la st -s eco nd

av oi da nc e m an eu ve r. Thi s te st im on y di d no t en ti tl e Can ad ia n Paci fic to jud gm en t as

a m at te r of la w, ho wev er, an d whe n vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to W ern er, th e

ev id en ce was su ffi c i e n t to en ab le a reas on ab le jury to fin d th at Bu zzel l was

in cap aci ta te d a nd th eref

or e n ot ne gl ig en t i n o pe rat in g h is tru ck

.

Can ad ia n Paci fic arg ue s in th e al te rn at iv e t ha t it is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a

m at te r of la w on it s cl ai m th at Bu zzel l vi ol at ed FMC SA reg ul at io ns by fai li ng to

di sc lo se hi s fat ig ue di ag no si s to a DOT ph y si ci an

. W ern er pr es en te d te st im on y fro m

Ja m ie Mau s, W ern er’s Vice Pres id en t of Safe ty an d Co m pl ia nc e, w ho st at ed th at

u n d e r co m

pa ny po li cy an d fed eral reg ul at io ns , Bu zzel l was req ui red to rep or t

po te nt ia l fat ig ue pr ob le m s on ly if hi s do ct or or de red a sl ee p st ud y , di ag no se d hi m
wit h a sl eep di so rd er, or pl aced hi m on a w o r k r e s t r i c ti on , an d th at he was no t

req ui red to rep or t fat ig ue th at de ve lo pe d aft er hi s ex am in at io n b y a DOT p hysic ia n

un le ss fat ig ue wou ld ha ve “ im pa ir[ ed ] hi s ab il it y to sa fel y op erat e a v e h i c l e.”

-1 1-Mo reo ve r , W ern er di sp ut ed th e accu racy of Bu zzel l’s m ed ic al reco rd s, su gg es ti ng

th at th e fat ig ue di ag no si s was li st ed as an act iv e pr ob le m in hi s m ed ic al reco rd on ly

be cau se of a cl eri cal erro r an d no ti ng th at hi s pr im ary care ph y si ci an di d no t in cl ud e

an y t r e a t men t no te s di sc us si ng th e fat ig ue di ag no si s, th at fat ig ue is no t a sl eep
di so rd er an d was no t li st ed on th e D O T q u e s t i on na ire

, an d th at Bu zzel l’s m ed ic al

reco rd s la ck ed su ffi c i e n t de ta il to de te rm in e whe th er Bu zzel l ex pe rie nc ed fat ig ue
whi le dr iv in g. Tak en in th e li gh t mo s t f a v o r a b le to W ern er, th is ev id en ce was

su ffi ci en t to en ab le a reas on ab le jury t o f i n d t h a t Bu zzel l di d no t su ffer fro m a

co nd it io n th at h e w a s r e qu ire d to rep or t an d th at he th us was no t ne gl ig en t in no t

rep or ti ng hi s fa ti gu e to W ern er o r th e DOT.

C. Ju ry Ins tru ct io ns

Can ad ia n Paci fic arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n whe n it di d

no t in st ru ct th e jury: “ Vio la ti on of a fed eral reg ul at io n i s n eg li ge nc e pe r se , u nl es s

th e vi ol at or pr ov es by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at th e f e d e r a l reg ul at or y
vi ol at io n was an act of God .” The di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury: “ Vio la ti on s of

a tra ffi c la w or reg ul at io n is ne gl ig en ce, un le ss th ere is ev id en ce te nd in g [to ] sh ow

. . . th e pe rs on ha d a reas on ab le ex cu se or jus ti fic at io n fo r br eak in g th e la w.” In de nyin g

Can ad ia n Paci fic ’s m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

, t he di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e

in st ru ct io n Can ad ia n Paci fic req ue st ed was an in co rrec t st at em en t of th e la w be cau se
vi ol at io ns of fed eral reg ul at io ns are pr ima fa ci e ev id en ce of ne gl ig en ce. “ W e rev ie w

a di st ric t co ur t’s jury in st ru ct io ns fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Mem s v. Ci ty of St

. Pau l,
Dep ’t of Fi re & Safe t y S erv s., 32 7 F.3 d 77 1, 78 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). “ Our rev ie w is

li m it ed in sc op e: we as k ‘w he th er th e in st ru ct io ns , t ak en as a who le an d vi ewed in

th e li gh t of th e ev id en ce an d ap pl ic ab l e l a w , f ai rly an d ad eq ua te ly su bm it te d th e
is su es in th e cas e to th e jury.’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng W he el in g Pi t t s b u r g h St eel Co rp

. v.

Bee lm an Ri ve r Term in al s, In c., 25 4 F.3 d 70 6

, 7 1 1 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 01 )). The pr im ary
is su e at tri al was whe th er Bu zzel l was in cap aci ta te d whe n hi s tru ck co ll id ed wit h

Can ad ia n Paci fic ’s tra in

, i.e.

, whe th er a reas on ab le ex cu se or jus ti fic at io n ex is te d to

-1 2-ex pl ai n th e a c c i de nt

. W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s in st ru ct io ns ad eq ua te ly

su bm it te d th e is su es to th e jury an d th at it di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g th e

req ue st ed in st ru ct io n.

III.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 3-