Caradonna v. AW Chesterton Co., Inc. (2007)

Our plain-English summary of Caradonna v. AW Chesterton Co., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, August 10, 2007).

Joseph Caradonna worked for the Long Island Railroad from 1949 to 1977 as a mechanic's helper, welder, train car inspector, coach cleaner and assistant foreman. He claimed he was exposed to asbestos from brake shoes, gaskets and other materials. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in about February 2006 and died about a year later. In earlier decisions, the court had held that federal locomotive and rail car safety statutes preempted state product liability claims against the product makers, leaving plaintiff with a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) claim against the railroad. The LIRR and the MTA then moved to dismiss the FELA claim, arguing it was also preempted by the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act and that a 1996 Federal Railroad Administration report found asbestos in locomotives posed no threat. The court denied the motion. It reasoned that FELA protects railroad employees from employer negligence and can include a duty to warn. It also reasoned that the Boiler Inspection Act does not preempt another federal statute, and nothing in the Act or the report ruled out negligence under FELA.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: New York Supreme Court
• Decided: August 10, 2007
• Citation: 2007 NY Slip Op 27332
• Stage: Motion to dismiss
• State: New York

Outcome. The court denied the motion by the LIRR and MTA to dismiss plaintiff Caradonna's FELA negligence claim as preempted by the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act, so the claim against the railroad went forward.

What the court held. The Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act preempts conflicting state-law claims but does not preempt another federal statute, so a railroad worker's FELA negligence claim against the railroad, including a duty to warn of workplace hazards, is not preempted.

Issues decided: Failure to Warn, FELA Railroad Claims, Federal Preemption.

The people and their exposure

• Joseph Caradonna: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) (railroad)
• Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) (railroad)
• A.W. Chesterton Co., Inc. (manufacturer)
• Griffin Wheel Company (manufacturer)
• Railroad Friction Products Corporation (manufacturer)
• General Motors Corporation (manufacturer) · its asbestos trust
• Viad Corp.

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

2007 NY Slip Op 27332

JOSEPH CARADONNA, Plaintiff,

v.

A.W. CHESTERTON CO., INC. (GRIFFIN WHEEL CO.) ET AL., Defendants.

106785/06.

Decided August 10, 2007.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.

Levy, Phillips & Konigsberg, LLP, New York, NY, By.: Pat Timmins, Esq., Holly C. Peterson, Esq., and Bracha Statman, Esq., Nancy A. Perry, Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Mound, Cotton, Wollan & Greengrass New York, New York, Attention Daniel Markewich, Esq., Attorneys for Defendant Viad Corp.

David Ferstendig, Esq., Law Offices of David L. Ferstendig, LLC, New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendant Griffin Wheel Company.

Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, LTD., New York, New York, Attention Christian H. Gannon, Esq., Attorneys for Defendant Railroad Friction Products Corporation.

Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & DiSipio, New York, New York, Attention Timothy J. McHugh, Esq., Attorneys for Defendant General Motors Corporation.

Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C., Newark, New Jersey, Attention Bhavna Changrani, Attorneys for Defendant LIRR and MTA.

FREEDMAN, J.

In this asbestos personal injury case, decedent Joseph Caradonna, a long time employee of the Long Island Railroad ("LIRR"), claims exposure to asbestos from brake shoes and gaskets and other asbestos containing materials. Mr. Caradonna worked as a a mechanic's helper, welder, train car inspector, coach cleaner, and assistant foreman from 1949 to 1977 and was diagnosed with mesothelioma in or about February 2006 and died about a year later.

In previous decisions, this Court found that the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act ("BIA" or "LIA"), 49 U.S.C. § 20701 preempted product liability claims because the BIA occupied the entire field of locomotive regulation. It also found that the Federal Safety Standards Act ("SAA"), 49 U.S.C. § 20301 occupied the field of rail car safety appliance regulation. Thus, no state law product liability claims could be brought against product manufacturers. The Court also found that plaintiff was relegated to a claim under the Federal Employer's Liability Act ("FELA") as to any negligence or violation of safety standards by the railroad.

Defendants LIRR and Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("MTA") now move to dismiss the Federal Employer's Liability Act on the ground that the FELA negligence claims are also preempted by BIA. Defendants aver that it would be anomalous to dismiss claims against the product manufacturers but allow claims against the employer under FELA. Defendants also argue that the Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA") report submitted to Congress in 1996 found that the presence of asbestos in locomotives did not warrant action and posed no threat to employees.

For the following reasons, defendants' motion is denied. First, FELA is a federal statute specifically designed to protect railroad employees from negligence of the employer. It imposes a duty upon railroads to provide a safe working environment upon its employees. Aparacio v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. 84 F. 3d 803 (6th Cir. 1996). That duty may also include a duty to warn as to hazards in the workplace. Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949)( finding that failure of a claim under the BIA did not preclude a FELA claim by a railroad employee who allegedly contracted silicosis). In fact, the standard of proof for negligence under FELA is less stringent than it is for most common law negligence claims. Second, although the BIA preempts state law claims that conflict with it or contravene its purpose, it does not preempt other federal statutes. "The

preemption doctrine flows from the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, which invalidates state law that interfere with, or are contrary to federal law.'" Tufariello v. LIRR, 458 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2006). In the Tufariello case, the Second Circuit specifically found that the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA)(the successor act to the BIA) did not preclude a FELA suit brought by a railroad worker against the railroad based on the alleged failure to provide adequate hearing protection even though FRSA did establish minimum sound levels for warning devices on trains. Similarly, there is nothing in the BIA or the FRA report that negates or contradicts a finding that under certain circumstances, the presence of asbestos could constitute negligence to employees under the FELA standards.

In a similar case in Nassau County, Kowalski v. Amchem Products, etal., Index No. 010484/07, the Court found that to the extent that the negligence claims under FELA did not expressly conflict with FRSA or any specific provision of the FRA report, they were not preempted. That Court, citing Tufariello, also found that LIA or FRSA claims did not preempt federal common law negligence claims under FELA because one federal statute does not preempt another.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to dismiss the FELA claim is denied.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• New York asbestos laws
• New York asbestos exposure sites