Facts: After being injured in an automobile accident with a train operated by respondent Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, petitioner Alizon Veit filed suit against Burlington Northern Santa Fe in the Superior Court for Whatcom County, asserting that Burlington Northern Santa Fe had been negligent in operating the train. The trial court granted summary judgment for Burlington Northern Santa Fe with regard to the issue of excessive speed, ruling that regardless of the fact that the train was traveling in excess of Burlington Northern Santa Fe’s internal speed limit, Veit’s claim of excessive speed was preempted by federal law insofar as the train was traveling below the federal speed limit. The trial court also granted Burlington Northern Santa Fe’s motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to Veit’s compliance with Washington Revised Code §46.61.345, which requires motorists to stop within fifteen to fifty feet of the nearest rail if a stop sign is present. After the jury returned a verdict for Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Veit appealed the trial court’s rulings. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed both the grant of summary judgment with regard to the issue of excessive speed and the grant of the motion in limine precluding Veit from referencing §46.61.345. Veit appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Is Veit’s claim of excessive speed preempted by federal law?

Did the trial court err in excluding evidence relating to Veit’s compliance with Washington Revised Code §46.61.345?

Conclusion: Chief Justice Madsen’s opinion for the Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals, concluding that the Federal Railroad Safety Act (49 U.S.C. §20106), whose speed limit the train that collided with Veit’s automobile was traveling within, occupies the field with regard to train speed and therefore preempts Veit’s excessive speed claim despite the fact that the train was traveling in excess of Burlington Northern Santa Fe’s internal speed limit. The Court also held that any error that the trial court may have committed in excluding evidence relating to Veit’s compliance with Washington Revised Code §46.61.345 was harmless given that the jury found no negligence on the part of Burlington Northern Santa Fe, making the issue of whether there had been contributory negligence on Veit’s part irrelevant.

Docket No. 83385-1 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 60126-1)

Petitioner: Alizon Veit

(Counsel: Edward S. Alexander, Kenneth Wendell Masters, Shelby R. Frost Lemmel, Douglas Ross Shepherd)

Respondent: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation

(Counsel: Tom Montgomery, Bradley Patrick Scarp, Kesley E. Endres, Wayne L. Robbins, Paul J. Lawrence, and Gregory J. Wong)

Briefs:

Argument: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 1:30pm

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, February 24th, 2011

Prevailing Party: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (Respondent)

Vote: 9-0

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-2011)

Madsen
(Majority)

Johnson

Alexander

Sanders

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens