Split Supreme Court upholds win for railroads on worker injury liability

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court in a 4-4 split on Thursday affirmed a lower court ruling that said a train that is stopped is not "in use" under a federal labor law, absolving Union Pacific Railroad Co of liability for a worker's injuries.

The divided court upheld a 2020 ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a single-sentence order, and did not issue an opinion or say how individual justices voted.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was on the 7th Circuit when it decided the case, did not participate.

Railroads can be held liable for workers' on-the-job injuries under multiple federal laws including the Locomotive Inspection Act. The LIA imposes total liability for injuries that stem from a railroad's failure to regularly inspect trains that are "in use."

The U.S. Department of Justice had backed plaintiff Bradley LeDure, a Union Pacific engineer who slipped on an oil slick on a locomotive before it departed from an Illinois railyard and sued the railroad over his injuries under the LIA.

DOJ in an amicus brief said a train is in use while it is undergoing preparations for the next movement in its journey, even when it is stopped.

But Union Pacific was supported by trade groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who said a ruling for LeDure would expose railroads to far more liability than federal law intended.

Union Pacific's lawyer, Scott Ballenger of Latham & Watkins, in a statement said, “We are very pleased that the Supreme Court left in place the Seventh Circuit's sensible rule that preparing a locomotive for use is not the same thing as using it."

Nelson Wolff of Schlichter Bogard & Denton, who represents LeDure, did not respond to a request for comment.

The LIA requires that trains "in use" be inspected daily and that walkways be kept free from oil, water, and other obstructions. Federal appeals courts have split over whether a train is in use under the LIA when it is not moving.

The 7th Circuit in 2020 affirmed a judge's dismissal of LeDure's case, saying that readying a locomotive for use "is the antithesis of using it."

Other appeals courts have devised different tests for determining when a train is in use. The 4th Circuit utilizes a fact-intensive "totality of the circumstances" analysis, for example, while the 5th Circuit has said the LIA applies once a train is assembled and the crew has completed pre-departure procedures.

The case is LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 20-807.

For LeDure: Nelson Wolff of Schlichter Bogard & Denton

For Union Pacific: Scott Ballenger and Tyce Walters of Latham & Watkins; Jonathan Amarilio of Taft Stettinius & Hollister

(NOTE: This article has been updated to include a statement from Union Pacific's attorney Scott Ballenger.)

Read more:

SCOTUS to DOJ: Is a stopped train in use? Unions want to know

SCOTUS to decide if stopped train is 'in use' under labor law

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.