FRSA Ballast Rules Do Not Preclude FELA Claims: Louisiana Supreme Court Adopts Pom Wonderful Preclusion Framework

Introduction

In Sean Van Buren v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company, No. 2024-C-01564 (La. Oct. 24, 2025), the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed a recurring and consequential question in railroad injury litigation: whether the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) and its ballast regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 213.103, preclude an injured railroad employee’s negligence action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA).

The case arose after carman Sean Van Buren alleged he fell and suffered back and spinal injuries because the ballast under Tracks 46 and 47 in KCS’s Shreveport yard gave way while he was repairing a railcar. KCS denied negligence and moved for summary judgment, arguing that FRSA and § 213.103 “subsume” ballast regulation and therefore preclude a FELA claim premised on ballast conditions. The trial court and the Second Circuit agreed and dismissed the suit.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that FRSA does not preclude FELA claims. The Court explicitly adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s preclusion analysis from Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102 (2014), aligning Louisiana with the growing post-Pom majority that treats FRSA and FELA as complementary federal schemes. The Court also held that, even apart from the preclusion question, the summary judgment record revealed genuine disputes of material fact on negligence and causation sufficient to proceed to trial.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court’s core holdings are:

• FRSA does not preclude FELA claims. Applying Pom Wonderful, the Court concluded FRSA’s regulatory regime and FELA’s remedial negligence scheme complement each other, and Congress has not indicated any intent to make FRSA an exclusive remedy or to impliedly repeal FELA in this area.
• 49 C.F.R. § 213.103 sets minimum track-safety requirements for ballast (load distribution, restraint, drainage, and alignment) aimed at rail infrastructure safety, not worker walkway safety. Compliance with § 213.103 is not a categorical bar to an employee’s negligence suit under FELA.
• On the summary judgment record, Van Buren offered sufficient evidence—through depositions of coworkers and managers describing uneven, loose, and inadequately maintained ballast and a lack of regular maintenance—to create genuine issues of material fact on breach and causation under FELA’s lenient standard. Summary judgment was therefore improper.
• The judgment granting summary judgment to KCS is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court canvassed the key strands of authority that have divided courts for two decades:

• Waymire, Lane, and Nickels (pre-Pom line favoring preclusion):
  • Waymire v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 218 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2000), and Lane v. R.A. Sims, Jr., Inc., 241 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2001) extended FRSA’s “uniformity” objective to conclude that FELA negligence claims should not impose standards different from those applicable under FRSA to state-law claims.
  • Nickels v. Grand Trunk W.R.R., 560 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2009), applied that reasoning to ballast, holding that FRSA “substantially subsumes” ballast regulation and precludes FELA claims premised on ballast size/composition.
  • Several federal district and state courts followed this path, emphasizing national uniformity and treating FRSA compliance as a shield against FELA liability in ballast and speed cases.
• Pom Wonderful (reorienting preclusion analysis):
  • In Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102 (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court held the FDCA did not preclude Lanham Act suits over misleading labeling. The Court emphasized statutory text, purpose, and long-term coexistence, and cautioned against implied repeals absent “irreconcilable conflict.”
  • The Pom framework distinguishes preclusion (overlap between federal statutes) from preemption (federal law displacing state law), and asks whether Congress intended one federal regime to extinguish another or whether they can sensibly operate in tandem.
• Post-Pom state high courts adopting the complementary-statutes view:
  • Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Hartry, 307 Ga. 566, 837 S.E.2d 303 (2019) (Georgia): FRSA and FELA are complementary; FRSA does not preclude FELA claims.
  • Cottles v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 224 So. 3d 572 (Ala. 2016) (Alabama): Same conclusion.
  • Noice v. BNSF Ry. Co., 383 P.3d 761 (N.M. 2016) (New Mexico): FRSA sets nationwide standards enforced by government; FELA provides a worker-focused private remedy; both further safety in distinct ways.
  • Other persuasive authorities include Fair v. BNSF Ry. Co., 238 Cal. App. 4th 269 (2015); Bratton v. Kansas City S. R. Co., 2015 WL 789127 (W.D. La. 2015); and Rouzer v. CSX Transp., Inc., 2025 WL 343514 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025).
• Preemption cases cited for context, not control:
  • CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993), and Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344 (2000), set out FRSA preemption principles for state-law claims, but they do not govern federal-on-federal preclusion. The Court observes that while preemption principles can be instructive, Pom Wonderful warns they do not control preclusion analysis.
• FELA causation and construction:
  • Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (1957) (FELA’s “any part, even the slightest” causation standard; remedial statute to be liberally construed).
  • Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Sorrell, 549 U.S. 158 (2007) (uniform negligence standard under FELA).

The Louisiana Supreme Court explicitly sides with the Pom-informed, complementary-statutes approach and rejects the Nickels/Waymire/Lane preclusion theory to the extent it treats FRSA uniformity as extinguishing FELA remedies for railroad employees.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis proceeds in two steps: a statutory interpretation of the FRSA–FELA relationship, and an application of Louisiana’s summary judgment standards to the record.

1. FRSA does not preclude FELA.
   • Text and structure: FRSA contains explicit preemption language aimed at state law (49 U.S.C. § 20106) and articulates a goal of national uniformity “to the extent practicable” (§ 20106(a)), but it does not contain text that precludes other federal causes of action, including FELA. By contrast, when Congress intends to displace overlapping federal remedies, it typically says so.
   • Long-term coexistence: FRSA (enacted 1970) and FELA (enacted 1908) have coexisted for 55 years. As in Pom Wonderful, Congress has amended these statutes multiple times without adding a preclusion clause. The Court treats this as “powerful evidence” that Congress did not intend FRSA to impliedly repeal or displace FELA.
   • Complementary purposes: FRSA imposes minimum safety standards for railroad operations and infrastructure, including ballast functions (load distribution, restraint, drainage, crosslevel/alignment), geared primarily toward track integrity and public/operational safety. FELA creates a private negligence remedy to protect railroad workers specifically, applying a liberal construction and a relaxed causation standard. These are different regulatory tools that, working together, advance safety.
   • Ballast regulation’s scope: The Court underscores that § 213.103 is about the structural performance of the track bed; it is not a worker-walkway standard. Courts have recognized this distinction (e.g., Grimes v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 116 F. Supp. 2d 995 (N.D. Ind. 2000); DeHahn v. CSX Transp., Inc., 925 N.E.2d 442 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)). Thus, compliance with § 213.103 does not answer the separate FELA question whether KCS provided a reasonably safe workplace under the circumstances.
   • Uniformity concerns addressed: KCS argued that national uniformity demands the same result for FRSA and FELA claims as for state-law claims. The Court, quoting Pom, rejects importing preemption logic to preclusion and stresses that preserving both statutes’ spheres is the congressional design. Uniformity under FRSA limits state-by-state regulation; it does not extinguish a federal worker’s remedy Congress created in FELA.
2. Summary judgment was improper under FELA’s standards.
   • Standard of review: Summary judgment is reviewed de novo. It is appropriate only when the record shows no genuine issues of material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The procedure is favored but bounded by the statutory criteria (La. C.C.P. art. 966).
   • FELA causation and proof: Under Rogers, an employee meets the FELA causation threshold if employer negligence played any part—however slight—in producing the injury. Circumstantial evidence can suffice.
   • Record evidence: KCS relied on an expert affidavit (David Brookings) opining that the area was reasonably safe, photos purporting to show adequate maintenance, and inspection records showing no track defects. Van Buren countered with multiple depositions from coworkers and a safety manager describing uneven ballast, loose areas, “big rock” interspersed with walkable “chat,” frequent stumbles, prior complaints specific to Tracks 46 and 47, and an absence of regular maintenance to secure and pack ballast.
   • Ruling: The Court distinguishes cases where a plaintiff relies solely on self-serving testimony (e.g., Alex v. BNSF). Here, corroborated accounts and maintenance-practice testimony create factual disputes on breach and causation. Under FELA’s lenient causation and negligence framework, those disputes belong to the jury.

Impact

The decision carries significant implications for railroad injury litigation in Louisiana and contributes to a pronounced national trend:

• Statewide, FELA claims survive FRSA compliance defenses. Railroads can no longer obtain summary judgment in Louisiana state courts by arguing that FRSA ballast standards categorically preclude employee negligence suits. Compliance with § 213.103 may be probative, but it is not dispositive of FELA liability.
• Realignment with the Pom Wonderful majority. Louisiana joins Georgia, Alabama, New Mexico, and other jurisdictions endorsing the view that FRSA and FELA are complementary. The opinion weakens the persuasive force of Nickels, Waymire, and Lane in Louisiana’s state courts, particularly on ballast and speed-related theories.
• Practical litigation consequences.
  • Plaintiffs: Evidence of inconsistent ballast sizing, loose or unpacked conditions, slope and crossfall hazards, prior complaints, and absence of routine maintenance can defeat summary judgment and reach a jury, even where track-inspection records show no defects under FRSA.
  • Defendants: FRSA compliance, expert engineering opinions, and inspection records remain relevant to rebut negligence and causation, but they will not eliminate FELA claims at the threshold on preclusion grounds. Defense strategy will likely shift toward fact-intensive merits arguments and credibility assessments.
• Federal–state comity and forum effects. Because FELA claims may be brought in state courts, Louisiana’s adoption of Pom’s preclusion framework invites greater uniformity among post-Pom jurisdictions and may influence litigation strategy and forum selection. While not binding on federal courts, the decision adds persuasive weight to the complementary-statutes view.
• Congressional signal. The Court highlights Congress’s silence on preclusion despite decades of FRSA–FELA coexistence. If Congress believes FRSA compliance should be a complete defense to FELA claims in specific domains, it can say so expressly. Until then, courts will give effect to both statutes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Preclusion vs. Preemption: Preemption addresses conflicts between federal and state law; federal law can displace state rules. Preclusion addresses how one federal statute interacts with another federal statute. Pom Wonderful teaches that courts should avoid implied repeal and give effect to both federal statutes unless they irreconcilably conflict.
• FRSA Ballast Regulation (49 C.F.R. § 213.103): A minimum track safety standard requiring ballast to perform specific structural functions: distributing load to the subgrade; restraining the track under dynamic and thermal loads; providing drainage; and maintaining proper crosslevel, surface, and alignment. It is not a worker walkway regulation.
• FELA Negligence and Causation: FELA allows railroad employees to recover for injuries caused in whole or in part by employer negligence. Causation is “featherweight”: if employer negligence played any part, even slight, in producing the injury, the claim may proceed. The statute is liberally construed in favor of worker protection.
• Summary Judgment (La. C.C.P. art. 966): Granted only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Courts review de novo and must deny summary judgment if reasonable jurors could find for the nonmovant based on the record.
• Complementary Statutes: Two federal statutes are complementary if each has its own purpose and scope and both can operate together without conflict. When statutes complement each other, courts avoid reading one to preclude the other absent clear congressional direction.

Additional Observations and Practice Notes

• Compliance as evidence, not immunity: While not expressly framed as a rule of decision, the opinion’s logic implies that FRSA compliance does not equal FELA immunity. Compliance may weigh against negligence, but a jury may still find negligence based on site-specific conditions, maintenance practices, and foreseeability.
• Ballast vs. walkway conditions: Plaintiffs should clearly distinguish between ballast’s structural functions under FRSA and walkway or footing conditions relevant to a reasonably safe workplace under FELA. Evidence of loose, uneven, or improperly sized ballast in work zones, contrasted with the absence of routine packing/maintenance, can be pivotal.
• Evidence that can defeat summary judgment in FELA ballast cases:
  • Documented employee complaints about specific tracks or areas
  • Accounts of prior incidents or frequent stumbles in the same zone
  • Descriptions of mixed “walking chat” and “big rock” creating unstable footing
  • Testimony about the lack of scheduled ballast maintenance or packing
  • Photographs contemporaneous with the incident (and scrutiny of “after” photos)
• Preemption remains distinct: This decision does not alter FRSA preemption of certain state-law claims by non-employees under Easterwood/Shanklin. The ruling concerns only whether FRSA precludes federal FELA claims by railroad employees.

Conclusion

Van Buren marks a decisive shift in Louisiana jurisprudence toward the national, post-Pom Wonderful consensus: FRSA’s regulatory regime—specifically the ballast standard in 49 C.F.R. § 213.103—does not preclude railroad employees from pursuing negligence claims under FELA. Emphasizing statutory text, long-standing coexistence, and complementary purposes, the Louisiana Supreme Court rejects the notion that FRSA’s quest for national uniformity sweeps away FELA’s worker-protective remedy.

On the facts, the Court reiterated FELA’s liberal construction and featherweight causation, concluding that corroborated testimony about uneven, loose, and inadequately maintained ballast, plus the absence of routine maintenance, creates triable issues. The decision restores the availability of a federal negligence remedy to railroad workers in Louisiana even where railroads assert FRSA compliance, and it aligns the state with other high courts recognizing that safety is advanced by giving full effect to both FRSA’s minimum standards and FELA’s remedial protections.

Disposition: Reversed and remanded.