Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 425

529US2

Unit: $U45

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

350

NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. v. SHANKLIN

Opinion of the Court

B

Shortly after 5 a.m. on October 3, 1993, Eddie Shanklin
drove his truck eastward on Oakwood Church Road in
Gibson County, Tennessee. App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a. As
Shanklin crossed the railroad tracks that intersect the road,
he was struck and killed by a train operated by petitioner.
Ibid. At the time of the accident, the Oakwood Church
Road crossing was equipped with advance warning signs and
reﬂectorized crossbucks, id., at 34a, the familiar black-and-
white, X-shaped signs that read “RAILROAD CROSSING,”
see U. S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Adminis-
tration, Manual on Uniform Trafﬁc Control Devices § 8B–2
(1988) (MUTCD). The Tennessee Department of Transpor-
tation (TDOT) had installed the signs in 1987 with federal
funds received under the Crossings Program. App. to Pet.
for Cert. 3a. The TDOT had requested the funds as part
of a project to install such signs at 196 grade crossings in
11 Tennessee counties. See App. 128–131. That request
contained information about each crossing covered by the
project, including the presence or absence of several of the
factors listed in § 646.214(b)(3). See id., at 134. The
FHWA approved the project, App. to Pet. for Cert. 34a,
and federal funds accounted for 99% of the cost of installing
It is undisputed
the signs at the crossings, see App. 133.
that the signs at the Oakwood Church Road crossing were
installed and fully compliant with the federal standards for
such devices at the time of the accident.

Following the accident, Mr. Shanklin’s widow, respondent
Dedra Shanklin, brought this diversity wrongful death action
against petitioner in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee.
Id., at 29–34. Respond-
ent’s claims were based on Tennessee statutory and common
law.
Id., at 31–33. She alleged that petitioner had been
negligent in several respects, including by failing to maintain
adequate warning devices at the crossing.
Ibid. Petitioner
moved for summary judgment on the ground that the FRSA