(Download) "Silva v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." by California Court of Appeals # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Silva v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
- Author : California Court of Appeals
- Release Date : January 28, 2000
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 71 KB
Description
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION 1 * Teenager Lucas Silva was killed when he was hit by a train owned and operated by defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific). His parents, plaintiffs Jose and Lupe Silva, filed a wrongful death action. Identified in the complaint as ""significant factors in the death of [the] deceased"" were ""negligent operation"" of the train and the failure ""to maintain fences protecting the public from the train tracks [sic]."" The heart of Union Pacific's litigation strategy has been the preemption of state common law liability by virtue of the extensive federal regulation of the railroad industry. The key to that strategy has been to establish that the train which killed Lucas Silva was traveling within a federally-authorized speed limit. Union Pacific obtained a summary judgment on the ground that it had established that the train had been operating within that speed limit. That judgment was reversed because the evidentiary showing establishing the speed limit was insufficient. (Silva v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (Sep. 30, 1997, A076412) [nonpub. opn.].) When the cause was returned to the superior court and called for trial, both sides made a number of competing in limine motions. The first category of motions concerned whether Union Pacific should or should not be precluded from offering evidence that it had no duty to fence its right- of-way at the accident site. The second category involved motions relating to the preemption issue and ancillary matters such as speed, brakes, and track classification. After hearing extensive argument on the motions, the trial court ruled that Union Pacific had no duty to fence. At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing the court ruled that Union Pacific had established federal preemption. After plaintiffs advised the court that they were ""unable to proceed, solely because of the rulings on [the] motions in limine,"" the parties stipulated to a judgment for Union Pacific that would allow plaintiffs to obtain appellate review of those rulings. Following entry of that judgment, plaintiffs perfected this timely appeal.