Justices’ decision could expand role of federal government in workplace hazard laws
Oral arguments in the Supreme Court Wednesday concerning workplace safety hazards came down to two words: in use.
The Court heard arguments in the case of Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp., a case centered around George Corson, now deceased, who worked in the rail industry for 47 years. Corson often handled asbestos-laced products and died from mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos.
Corson’s daughter and widow sued the manufacturer of the products, claiming it was partly responsible for his death. While there are state regulations in place regarding asbestos in the workplace, the federal law regulating railroads does not address asbestos risks.
According to American University Washington College of Law professor Andy Popper, the case is important because it could have implications not just for the railroad, but for many different workplaces.
“What is at stake is access to the courts, basic justice and the ability of injured consumers to have their harms redressed in state court claims for damages,” Popper said.
It is up to the Court to decide whether federal law preempts, or prevents, claimants from suing companies regarding workplace hazards based on state regulations. The industry claims that since there is a federal law regulating railroad safety, that law trumps any state laws on the issue. That’s where the phrase “in use” comes into play, based on case precedent.
“The industry argument is predicated on a 1926 preemption case, Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., which held that state were not permitted to pass legislation that addressed the same fields that the Locomotive Inspection Act addressed nearly a century ago,” he said.
While the Napier case did address federal railroad legislation, the Court “certainly did not contemplate asbestotic cancer risks and third party manufacturer liability,” two important factors in the Kurns case. Since the federal law doesn’t mention asbestos, if the federal law did overrule state law, manufacturers would not be responsible for liability claims meaning people like Corson and their families could not sue the manufacturer for damages.
Lawyers for Kurns argue that federal railroad legislation only trumps state regulations when the locomotive is “in use,” meaning on the railroad, because “in use” is the exact phrase used in the Napier decision.
“Congress enacted the Locomotive Inspection Act to ensure the safety of locomotives in use on railroad lines, not to regulate hazards to mechanics conducting repairs of locomotives,” David Frederick, counsel for the plaintiffs, said.
If this was the case, since Corson was a mechanic who worked on rail cars when they were not “in use,” his family would be able to hold the manufacturers liable.
Justice Antonin Scalia pushed back, though, calling parts of Frederick’s argument “unrealistic.”
Along the same lines, Justice Elena Kagan said limiting the regulatory authority of the federal government regarding safety standards to only apply to locomotives when they were in use seemed like a “very limiting construction.” She said the ruling in Napier has a broader construction and said she also believed the federal government has taken a broader understanding of its regulatory authority in the past.
According to Popper, since previous federal railroad laws do not address liability claims based on workplace hazards like asbestos, both the federal law and the state laws “can easily co-exist with claims seeking compensation for asbestotic cancer” and the “in use” argument may not even matter.
Although some justices seemed skeptical of the plaintiffs’ argument, they did have one group on their side—the federal government.
“In Napier, again, what’s important to remember is that the state statue at issue applied only to locomotives that are in use,” said Sarah Harrington, assistant to the Solicitor General, representing the United States.
Outside the court after the arguments, Richard Myer, a lawyer for the plaintiff, called the backing from the federal government “tremendously helpful.”
Myers said he was optimistic about the outcome of the case, but said he knew it would be a split decision.
“We will get some votes, but how this court is going to split, I can’t tell you,” Myer said.
heathercaygle 