Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 419.0

529US2

Unit: $U45

[09-26-01 10:03:40] PAGES PGT: OPIN

344

OCTOBER TERM, 1999

Syllabus

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. v. SHANKLIN,
individually and as next friend of SHANKLIN

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the sixth circuit

No. 99–312. Argued March 1, 2000—Decided April 17, 2000

The Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (FRSA) authorizes the Secre-
tary of Transportation to promulgate regulations and issue orders for
railroad safety, and it requires the Secretary to maintain a coordinated
effort to solve railroad grade crossing problems. The FRSA also has
an express pre-emption provision. One regulation promulgated by
the Secretary, through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
addresses the adequacy of warning devices installed under the Federal
Railway-Highway Crossings Program (Crossings Program). That pro-
gram provides funds to States for the construction of such devices pur-
suant to the Highway Safety Act of 1973. According to the regula-
tion, adequate warning devices installed using federal funds, where
any of several conditions are present, are automatic gates and ﬂashing
lights.
23 CFR § 646.214(b)(3). For crossings where those conditions
are not present, a State’s decision about what devices to install is sub-
ject to FHWA approval.
§ 646.214(b)(4). Respondent’s husband was
killed when petitioner’s train hit his vehicle at a crossing with advance
warning signs and reﬂectorized crossbucks that the Tennessee Depart-
ment of Transportation (TDOT) had installed using federal funds under
the Crossings Program. The signs were installed and fully compliant
with applicable federal standards. Respondent brought a diversity
wrongful death action in federal court, alleging that petitioner was
negligent in, among other things, failing to maintain adequate warning
devices at the crossing. The District Court denied petitioner’s sum-
mary judgment motion, holding that the FRSA did not pre-empt re-
spondent’s inadequate warning device claim. After a trial, the jury
awarded respondent damages on this and other negligence issues. The
Sixth Circuit afﬁrmed.

Held: The FRSA, in conjunction with §§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4), pre-empts
state tort claims concerning a railroad’s failure to maintain adequate
warning devices at crossings where federal funds have participated in
the devices’
In CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507
U. S. 658, 670, this Court held that, because §§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4) “es-
tablish requirements as to the installation of particular warning de-
vices,” “when they are applicable, state tort law is pre-empted.” Thus,

installation.