Reported / Citable
Background
On July 23, 2018, Juan Maldonado, a commercial truck driver, was killed when his tractor-trailer was struck by a Union Pacific train traveling westbound at approximately 68 mph at the John Conoly Road crossing near Van Horn, Texas. The crossing was marked only with a yield sign and crossbucks. Maldonado’s family members filed suit asserting negligence and gross negligence claims, alleging the crossing was “extrahazardous” due to increased commercial truck traffic following the opening of a nearby sand mine, and that Union Pacific had failed to install adequate warning devices. The plaintiffs pointed to three other collisions and 11 near misses at the crossing in the six months preceding Maldonado’s death.
The trial court granted Union Pacific’s motion for directed verdict on the inadequate warning claims based on federal preemption grounds, finding that federal funds had been used to install the crossbucks. The trial court then conditionally submitted to the jury the question of whether the crossing was “extrahazardous” at the time of the collision. The jury answered “No,” and the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment in favor of Union Pacific.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the trial court’s directed verdict on federal preemption. The appellate court held that Union Pacific had overcome the presumption against preemption by establishing that federal funds were used to install the crossbucks at the John Conoly crossing as part of the Federal Highway Administration’s “STP 2004(561) RXP” project in 2004. The Federal Highway Administration appropriated $1,215,000 (representing 90% of the project cost), and the court found Union Pacific’s documentary evidence, including federal payment records and billing invoices, conclusively established that federal funds were paid to TxDOT for the crossing improvements. Under the Federal Rail Safety Act of 1970 (FRSA), when railroad crossing improvements are federally funded, federal regulations specify what warning devices must be used, and section 20106 expressly preempts state tort law actions challenging the adequacy of those devices.
The court also affirmed the jury instruction defining an “extrahazardous” crossing as one “when, because of surrounding conditions, it is so dangerous that persons using ordinary care cannot pass over it in safety without some warning other than the usual crossbuck sign.” The court held this definition was legally correct and consistent with established Texas law. The court noted that while evidence of prior similar accidents may be relevant to the extrahazardous question, Texas law does not require a trial court to instruct the jury to specifically consider such evidence. The plaintiffs had failed to preserve error by not objecting at the charge conference to the specific language and by not tendering a written proposed definition.
Key Takeaways
- FRSA expressly preempts state tort law claims challenging the adequacy of warning devices when federal funds participated in the railroad crossing improvements.
- Proof of federal funding for crossing improvements requires establishing a clear chain: federal authorization and appropriation, project-specific work, and federal payment to the state funding agency, which the state then pays to the railroad.
- The “extrahazardous” crossing standard requires showing surrounding conditions make a crossing so dangerous that persons using ordinary care cannot safely traverse it without warnings beyond a standard crossbuck sign.
- Evidence of prior similar accidents is admissible and relevant to the extrahazardous question, but a trial court is not required to include explicit jury instructions directing consideration of such evidence.
- One similar accident over a 40-year period is insufficient to establish a crossing is extrahazardous, even when combined with other incidents or near misses.
Why It Matters
This decision solidifies the application of FRSA preemption to federally-funded railroad crossing improvements and provides clear guidance on the evidentiary burden for establishing federal funding. For plaintiffs asserting inadequate warning claims in railroad crossing collision cases, federal funding of the warning devices presents a potentially insurmountable preemption barrier. The decision clarifies that the preemption analysis focuses on whether federal funds participated in the improvement, not on the ultimate adequacy of the warning devices themselves.
The decision also restates the demanding standard for establishing that a railroad crossing is “extrahazardous.” While prior accidents may be relevant, they must occur under similar circumstances, and isolated incidents—even multiple incidents over shorter periods—may not suffice. This creates significant practical challenges for plaintiffs in crossing accident cases where federal funding is involved, as their claims are preempted before the jury ever reaches the question of whether extraordinary warnings were necessary.