Opinion ID: 2408514
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Maintain Warning Devices

Text: Finally, Sharp alleges that the trial court erred when it granted the railroad a directed verdict on his claim that the railroad was negligent in failing to maintain the crossbucks at the Louisiana Street crossing. Sharp is correct that the Highway Safety Act does not preempt claims that a railroad was negligent in failing to maintain warning devices at a crossing. See, e.g., Michael v. Norfolk S. Ry., 74 F.3d 271 (11th Cir.1996); Kiemele v. Soo Line R.R., 93 F.3d 472 (8th Cir.1996). As explained by the court in Michael , 23 C.F.R. § 646.214(b) deals with the design and installation of new warning devices, not the maintenance of those devices. Michael, supra . Thus, while the Highway Safety Act preempts a claim that the railroad failed to install adequate warning devices, it does not preempt a claim that the railroad was negligent in failing to maintain the warning devices implicitly approved by the FHWA. Moreover, we disagree with the dissent's assertion that there is a very thin line between these two types of claims. As previously explained, federal preemption strips the railroad of its decision-making authority as to what types of warning devices are needed at a particular intersection. Preemption, however, does not relieve the railroad of its separate and distinct duty to maintain the warning devices. We find the line between these two types of claims to be clear and distinct. During oral argument, Sharp asserted that the trial court precluded him from presenting any evidence that the railroad was negligent in failing to maintain the crossbucks at the Louisiana Street crossing. The abstract, however, is devoid of any such ruling. Moreover, after the railroad moved for a directed verdict on this issue, Sharp proclaimed: It has been my assumption that [the claim that the railroad was negligent in failing to maintain the warning devices] was part of the preemption, your Honor, and that's the reason I didn't try to put on any proof. We agree with Sharp's admission that he failed to present any proof that the railroad was negligent in this respect. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's ruling. For these reasons, we reverse and remand on the railroad's direct appeal, and affirm on Sharp's cross-appeal. BROWN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.