Robb v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the “switching exclusion” applies only to “a worker who was injured on a ‘completed train,’ ” not a worker “injured on a car that was not part of a completed train”
• discussing the Fourth Circuit’s holding and reliance on Seaboard in Phillips, and holding that the switching exclusion from Seaboard does not apply to the FSAA handbrake provision
• discussing the Fourth Circuit’s holding and reliance on Seaboard in Phillips, and holding that the switching exclusion from Seaboard does not apply to the FSAA handbrake provision
• “It is precisely because safety in the yard during switching operations calls for efficient hand brakes that can stop cars and other vehicles that Congress passed the hand brake provision.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).