Kevin Cowden v. BNSF Railway Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “the Supreme Court has cautioned that the FELA should not be cut down by inference or implication.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• stating that “the Supreme Court has cautioned 8 that the FELA should not be cut down by inference or implication.” (internal 9 quotation marks and citation omitted)
• observing that, “because the LIA does not provide an independent cause of action for personal injuries, the district court granted summary judgment for BNSF” as to this claim
• noting that it is not clear how negligence claims brought under the federal common law of FELA cases, as opposed to the tort laws of the various states, threaten “the uniformity sought by the FRSA”
• collecting cases applying different standards to determine preclusion and expressing doubt that FELA claims can be precluded at all by FRSA regulations
• taking this language from Easterwood and placing the burden of proof on the railroad company advocating preclusion of a FELA claim by a FRSA regulation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).