Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 426.0

529US2

Unit: $U45

[09-26-01 10:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 344 (2000)

351

Opinion of the Court

pre-empted respondent’s suit. App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a.
The District Court held that respondent’s allegation that the
signs installed at the crossing were inadequate was not pre-
empted.
Id., at 29a–37a. Respondent thus presented her
inadequate warning device claim and three other allegations
of negligence to a jury, which found that petitioner and
Mr. Shanklin had both been negligent. App. 47. The jury
assigned 70% responsibility to petitioner and 30% to Mr.
Ibid. The
Shanklin, and it assessed damages of $615,379.
District Court accordingly entered judgment of $430,765.30
for respondent.

Id., at 48.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit afﬁrmed, hold-
ing that the FRSA did not pre-empt respondent’s claim that
the devices at the crossing were inadequate. 173 F. 3d 386
(1999).
It reasoned that federal funding alone is insufﬁcient
to trigger pre-emption of state tort actions under the FRSA
Instead, the rail-
and §§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4).
road must establish that § 646.214(b)(3) or (4) was “applied”
to the crossing at issue, meaning that the FHWA afﬁrma-
tively approved the particular devices installed at the cross-
Id., at 397. The court concluded
ing as adequate for safety.
that, because the TDOT had installed the signs for the pur-
pose of providing “minimum protection” at the Oakwood
Church Road crossing, there had been no such individualized
determination of adequacy.

Id., at 394.

We granted certiorari, 528 U. S. 949 (1999), to resolve a
conﬂict among the Courts of Appeals as to whether the
FRSA, by virtue of 23 CFR §§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4) (1999),
pre-empts state tort claims concerning a railroad’s failure to
maintain adequate warning devices at crossings where fed-
eral funds have participated in the installation of the devices.
Compare Ingram v. CSX Transp., Inc., 146 F. 3d 858 (CA11
1998) (holding that federal funding of crossing improvement
triggers pre-emption under FRSA); Armijo v. Atchison, To-
peka & Santa Fe R. Co., 87 F. 3d 1188 (CA10 1996) (same);
Elrod v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 68 F. 3d 241 (CA8 1995)