2024-01564 (La. 10/24/25); 421 So.3d 910

In October of 2025, the Louisiana Supreme Court analyzed the relationship between the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) and the Federal Employer Liability Act (FELA) in Van Buren v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company. Plaintiff Sean Van Buren worked as a carman for Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS), where he would inspect, maintain, and repair KCS’s railcars. Van Buren brought suit against KCS alleging that he injured his back and spine when faulty railroad ballast – gravel-like rock used to support railroad ties – collapsed and caused him to fall. Van Buren asserted that KCS failed to properly maintain the ballast along the section of track where he was working, and that its failure caused him to sustain injuries. Van Buren brought his personal injury suit under the FELA, which provides railroad employees with the exclusive remedy against their employers for workplace accidents caused by negligence. To prevail on a claim under FELA, the plaintiff must show that employer negligence play some part – “even the slightest” – in producing the employee’s injuries.

KCS denied Van Buren’s claims and moved for summary judgment, asserting that the FRSA – a statute which provides uniform safety standard for railroad tracks, including ballast requirements – precluded his FELA claim. In support of its motion, KCS offered deposition testimony and engineering affidavits to support that it maintained a safe railyard in compliance with the FRSA. Van Buren opposed, citing multiple coworkers’ depositions describing poor and uneven ballast conditions on the portion of track where Van Buren was doing repairwork. Van Buren also submitted employee complaints about the ballast that KCS failed to address, and an acknowledgement by KCS’s safety manager that there were no regularly scheduled maintenance to secure the ballast. The trial court granted KCS’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the FRSA precluded Van Buren’s FELA claim, and the Second Circuit affirmed. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted writ.

The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and held that the FRSA does not preclude Van Buren’s FELA claim. The Court turned to Pom Wonderful, a United States Supreme Court decision, and found that the two statutes are complementary in nature and do not implicate preclusion. The Court noted that the FRSA sets certain minimum track safety standards while the FELA provides a negligence remedy for injured employees, and that the statutes have coexisted for 55 years without Congress enacting any provisions to address their preclusive relationship. Accordingly, Van Buren’s FELA claim was revived.

Turning to the merits of KCS’s motion for summary judgment, the Court held that Van Buren’s supporting evidence – that is, his coworkers’ testimony regarding poor ballast conditions and KCS’s safety manager confirming the lack of scheduled maintenance for the ballast – was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to KCS’s negligence. Again, the FELA applies a less stringent causation standard, requiring only that a plaintiff demonstrate that the employer’s negligence played any part, however slight, in the employee’s injuries. Therefore, Van Buren’s supporting evidence precluded summary judgment under FELA.

About the Author...

Dominic M. Berthelot
Liskow

Written on behalf of the Appellate Practice Committee.