Javascript must be enabled to continue!
The Truth About Torts: Regulatory Preemption at the Federal Railroad Administration
View through CrossRef
During the Bush II Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the federal agency charged with overseeing railroad safety, aggressively asserted the preemptive authority of its regulations, continuing to write broad preemption language into the preambles to its rules asserting that injured parties have no ability to seek compensation for their injuries or loss of loved ones, and even ignoring Congress’ attempt to amend the Federal Railroad Safety Act, the statute that governs federal railroad safety, to clarify that regulations issued under the statute are not intended to preempt state tort law.
The white paper argues that the FRA should discontinue its efforts to preempt state tort law, explaining that a complementary system of federal regulatory standards and state common law is the best way to achieve railroad safety for passengers and railroad employees. In brief, it argues that a complementary tort system should be retained because:
1. The FRA is a resource-starved agency unable to prevent accidents: State common law provides a backstop for the failure of the agency to adequately investigate accidents or enforce its regulations.
2. The FRA is captured by industry: Because the agency has placed so much responsibility with industry to regulate itself, the tort system is needed to serve as an independent monitor of industry’s activities to ensure they are undertaken with safety in mind.
3. The FRA is unable to hold railroads accountable for improving safety: The agency relies on the railroad industry as a partner in doing its job, which hinders its ability to spur the railroad industry into taking appropriate measures to prevent railway accidents.
4. State common law preserves corrective and protective justice: A person’s right to seek redress for harm inflicted on him or her should never be obliterated by federal preemptive power.
The white paper concludes by offering various recommendations for how the FRA and Congress can each promote the complementary roles that federal regulation and state common law can play in ensuring greater railroad safety.
Title: The Truth About Torts: Regulatory Preemption at the Federal Railroad Administration
Description:
During the Bush II Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the federal agency charged with overseeing railroad safety, aggressively asserted the preemptive authority of its regulations, continuing to write broad preemption language into the preambles to its rules asserting that injured parties have no ability to seek compensation for their injuries or loss of loved ones, and even ignoring Congress’ attempt to amend the Federal Railroad Safety Act, the statute that governs federal railroad safety, to clarify that regulations issued under the statute are not intended to preempt state tort law.
The white paper argues that the FRA should discontinue its efforts to preempt state tort law, explaining that a complementary system of federal regulatory standards and state common law is the best way to achieve railroad safety for passengers and railroad employees.
In brief, it argues that a complementary tort system should be retained because:
1.
The FRA is a resource-starved agency unable to prevent accidents: State common law provides a backstop for the failure of the agency to adequately investigate accidents or enforce its regulations.
2.
The FRA is captured by industry: Because the agency has placed so much responsibility with industry to regulate itself, the tort system is needed to serve as an independent monitor of industry’s activities to ensure they are undertaken with safety in mind.
3.
The FRA is unable to hold railroads accountable for improving safety: The agency relies on the railroad industry as a partner in doing its job, which hinders its ability to spur the railroad industry into taking appropriate measures to prevent railway accidents.
4.
State common law preserves corrective and protective justice: A person’s right to seek redress for harm inflicted on him or her should never be obliterated by federal preemptive power.
The white paper concludes by offering various recommendations for how the FRA and Congress can each promote the complementary roles that federal regulation and state common law can play in ensuring greater railroad safety.
Related Results
Obsolescent Preemption
Obsolescent Preemption
During the first Trump Administration, cities and states responded to the void in federal climate leadership with a flurry of climate-protective policies and lawsuits. Even during ...
Le droit de préemption
Le droit de préemption
Droit de propriété et liberté contractuelle fondent le droit pour tout propriétaire de choisir la personne à laquelle il souhaite, le cas échéant, vendre son bien. Il est pourtant ...
FPA Preemption in the 21st Century
FPA Preemption in the 21st Century
On February 24, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing. In deciding this case, the Court must determine whether an effort by the State of Mar...
Emerging Torts
Emerging Torts
The law of tort, or torts, is part of the English common law which has developed incrementally since Norman times. Academic writers are not agreed whether there is a law of tort or...
Anatomi dan Literasi Post-Truth
Anatomi dan Literasi Post-Truth
Abstract. Post-truth has become a jargon in conversation and discussion. The concept of the theory is complex and becomes a challenge in itself to ground it in the general public. ...
Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Photo ID 123697425 © Alexandersikov | Dreamstime.com
Abstract
Originalism is an increasingly prevalent method for interpreting provisions of the US Constitution. It requires strict...
Plenary Power Preemption
Plenary Power Preemption
This Essay responds to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arizona v. United States, which struck down all but one of the disputed sections of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 immigration la...
Globalization and Federalism in a Post-Printz World
Globalization and Federalism in a Post-Printz World
This article, forthcoming in the Tulsa Law Journal, uses the Supreme Court's recent decision in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council as the vehicle for examining the constituti...

