Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 422

529US2

Unit: $U45

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

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

347

Opinion of the Court

Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves an action for damages against a railroad
due to its alleged failure to maintain adequate warning
devices at a grade crossing in western Tennessee. After
her husband was killed in a crossing accident, respondent
brought suit against petitioner, the operator of the train in-
volved in the collision. Respondent claimed that the warn-
ing signs posted at the crossing, which had been installed
using federal funds, were insufﬁcient to warn motorists of
the danger posed by passing trains. The speciﬁc issue we
must decide is whether the Federal Railroad Safety Act of
1970, 84 Stat. 971, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 20101 et seq.,
in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration’s
regulation addressing the adequacy of warning devices in-
stalled with federal funds, pre-empts state tort actions such
as respondent’s. We hold that it does.

I
A

In 1970, Congress enacted the Federal Railroad Safety Act
(FRSA) “to promote safety in every area of railroad opera-
tions and reduce railroad-related accidents and incidents.”
49 U. S. C. § 20101. The FRSA grants the Secretary of
Transportation the authority to “prescribe regulations and
issue orders for every area of railroad safety,” § 20103(a), and
directs the Secretary to “maintain a coordinated effort to
develop and carry out solutions to the railroad grade crossing
problem,” § 20134(a). The FRSA also contains an express
pre-emption provision, which states:

“Laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad
safety shall be nationally uniform to the extent prac-
ticable. A State may adopt or continue in force a law,
regulation, or order related to railroad safety until the
Secretary of Transportation prescribes a regulation or