Recently, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Kurns as the executrix of the estate of Corson who was deceased and others against the Railroad Friction Products Company. The case has interesting implications for the rights of a deceased person to sue. The case concerned a man who worked as a welder and machinist for a railroad carrier. After retirement, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He and his wife then sued the company that was responsible for he is exposure to asbestos in the train repair workshops and is the company's train engine parts which were distributed by the company that was sued. The plaintiff alleged that the company designed its trade products defectively and failed to warn of the dangers posed by the asbestos. The basic holding of the court was that the state law in relation to the design defects and the failure to warn claims fell within the field of locomotive equipment regulation and that field was defined by previous case law.
The basic legislation underpinning the decision says that a railroad carrier may use are allowed to be used a locomotive will depend on its railroad line only when the locomotive or tender and its parts are improper condition and safe to operate without necessary danger of personal injury. The court analysed the previous cases which have examined this type of issue and held that to state laws prescribing the use of locomotive equipment pre-empted by the original statements legislation meant that the broad power conferred by the original statements legislation on the Interstate commerce commission which was the agency then vested with authority to carry out the requirements was a general one. the piece of legislation which was seen to be in conflict with the state-based legislation was the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970. the parties did not argue that the previous case was wrong. Instead, they argue that their claims the outside the field of the status legislation and that this meant that the federal legislation must override it.
The case reflects in its ultimate reasoning of the decision the fact that the supremacy clause in the federal law related to the US Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land and anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding shall be subservient to the federal legislation which is stated in United States Constitution in article 4, clause 2. The court then went on to reason that the state requirements of the state legislation were not pre-empted by federal legislation because the court was asked to consider whether there was a manifest intention to occupy the entire field of regulating locomotive equipment. The court answer that question should be determined affirmatively and said that the broad scope of the authority conferred on the Interstate commerce commission by Congress led to that conclusion. The power delegated to the commission, it was explained in previous cases was a general one that extends to the design, construction and the material of every part of locomotive and tender of all equipment associated with this.
The decision left the petitioners without a sufficient remedy in relation to the fatal exposure of asbestos in a repair facility. Because of this, Justice Sotomayor partially concurred but also partially percent majority on the decision and said it is you it would not be a just outcome if the petition is in this case could not hope to recover in relation to the exposure of the plaintiff to asbestos resulting in mesothelioma. The implication of the case is the larger of claims will be wiped out in relation to the railroad industry because of the decision in this matter.
Should You Give Up Ownership Of Your Judgment? Responding to a Collection Agency's Interrogatories Correctly Receiving a Summons: How to Answer a Summons for Debt Properly Which Judgments Should You Take?
0 comments:
Post a Comment