Kurns vs. Railroad Friction Products Corp.
George Corson was a railroad machinist who worked at Railroad Friction Corp most of his life. Mr. Corson then died of malignant mesothelioma. The only identified cause of his death is the exposure to asbestos. This was alleged to be present in the locomotive boilers and brake shoes he worked with. Mr. Corson’s widow and daughter then sued the manufacturers of those products. The manufacturers, however, argued that the plaintiffs’ state-law wrongful act claims were preempted by the federal railroad safety laws (Kurns v Railroad Products, 2011). The Public Justice’s amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court explains that, even when federal guideline preempts state legislation and that the Court has
…show more content…
Though there was evidence that supported the plaintiff’s case, the case pre-empted by the Locomotive Inspection Act and by the federal railroad safety laws. This protected the Railroad Friction Product Corp for any liabilities because there was nothing on paper after inspections that there was a possibility of exposure to asbestos. The Decision was 6 votes for Railroad Friction Products Corp and 3 vote(s) against. The Legal provision that stood behind the decision resided on the Locomotive Inspection Act. Justice Clarence Thomas provided the opinion of the Court supporting the lower court's decision, but the Courts believed that the Locomotive Inspection Act prevented the state law design faulty claims and the state law failure to warn claims. The Court highlighted that state law must yield to a Congressional Act, to the level of any conflict with federal statute, even if there is no express preemption. The Court also determined that the Federal Railroad Safety Act did not change the probability of the Locomotive Inspection Act. However, she did not think that the Locomotive Inspection Act preempted the claims for failure to warn because those claims were not based on any product's physical compensation, but on a failure to provide adequate instructions or warning and that the entire locomotive inspection act
...udicial branch of the American government must be checked by the legislatures of states. To prevent instances like this from reoccurring, it is essential for state legislatures to take preventative steps and draft bills that would further limit the ability of the government to appropriate private property while still protecting private property owners. At the federal level, since it is abundantly clear from the case of Midkiff that the Supreme Court will defer to the Congress to define “public use,” a constitutional remedy needs to take place in the form of an amendment to the Constitution. It would be essential that an amendment to the Public Use Clause would specify the guidelines and standards of a “public use” to preserve the original intent of the legislative authors and provide the necessary private property protection to which all all Americans have a right.
The court for this case found that the search and seizure of the stereo violated the fourth and fourteenth Amendments. The Decision was 6 votes for Hicks and 3 votes against.
The case came to the Supreme Court as the infamous Federal versus State battle for power. Once again the question plagued Marshall whether to support Federalism, or keep States’ rights alive.
Jost, Kenneth. "The Federal Judiciary." CQ Researcher 8.10 (1998). CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. .
Missouri and Florida’s New Laws Constitutional? Missouri Law Review, Spring2012, Vol. 77 Issue 2, p567-589. 23p. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=aef9f6f7-734d-4a6c-adae-2b97736ecc93%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=127
The evolution of power gained by the Federal government can be seen in the McCuloch versus Maryland (1819) case. This case des...
The opposing argument serves as a perfect gateway to the topic of relationship between Federal and State government. In the United States, the Supremacy Clause serves...
The movie “A Civil Action” released on January 8, 1999 provides viewers with an extraordinary story of the nightmare that occurred in Woburn Massachusetts in the late 1970’s. The people of this small town at the time had no idea what was going on until there were various cases of Leukemia in small children that ultimately resulted in the early passing of them. The people eventually had gone to find out that the drinking water in this small town was contaminated and there were many women that stepped in to get answers. This movie is a tremendously jaw dropping, eye opening account of a heartbreaking true story incident. There are various elements of negligence in this movie including, duty, legal cause, proximate cause and damages.
The conflicts between State and Federal law are numerous, recently the high debate concerning marijuana has been seeing high interest. This case highlights a division not only in citizen perception, but also the actualized reality in the Criminal Justice system; where morality and discretion as well as State and Federal powers clash. In a recent Colorado case, Coats v. Dish Network, where an employee was terminated and later sued, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against Coats. This recent ruling shows how far of a reach the Federal government can have when influencing laws onto States
Purpose - To prove negligence of both General Palmer Railroad and engineer Lee Thompson in regards to the accident that killed John Goodson. To prove that current railroad regulations and procedures are not adequate to prevent grade crossing accidents.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Arnold & Porter chose to sue Pittston rather than the Buffalo Mining Company because the value of the corporation allowed for adequate compensation to the victims. Author and head lawyer for the plaintiffs, Gerald M. Stern, writes that the original goal was sue to sue for $21 million for the disaster to have a material effect on the cooperation (51). To avoid responsibility Pittston attempted to prove that the Buffalo Mining Company was an independent corporation with its own board of directors. The lawyers for the plaintiffs disproved this claim by arguing the Buffalo Mining Company never held formal meetings of the board of directors and was not independent of the parent company. During this case Pittston’s Oil division had applied to build an oil refinery in Maine. The ...
...acific Railway Co. v. Botsford - 141 U.S. 250 (1891). Retrieved from Justia U.S. Supreme Court: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/141/250/case.html
For example, factory workers were expected to work 14-16 hour days, six days a week. The dusty, dirty, unlit mills along with few break times made working there a living hell. “Breaker boys suffered from chronic throat trouble and respiratory illnesses that were caused by inhaling coal dust. Above ground machinery, particularly coal crushers, were dangerously loud. If a breaker boy worked long hours around the coal crusher he often suffered from hearing loss (Wagner). Due to the fact that there were no safety laws in place, ear plugs and masks were not used. In fact, no safety equipment was. The dangerous machines with unprotected parts made children susceptible to injury and death. If someone were to get injured, they were immediately fired and not paid compensation for their health care. “If a boy was caught wearing gloves, the boss would beat him. A skin condition that miners termed “Red tips” was brought about by prolonged contact with sulfur from the coal. Breaker boys’ fingers often became cracked, bloody, and swollen from sorting (Wagner)....