2 July 2008
Ruling Backs Minot Train Derailment Victims
Minneapolis Minnesota USA - A legal battle waged between
victims of a 2002 train derailment outside Minot, North Dakota, and the railroad may be heading back to state court for resolution,
after a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling Wednesday.
The federal courts had ruled that victims couldn't seek damages in state courts.
Not any more, said David Cialkowski, an attorney with Zimmerman Reed who represents plaintiffs in the case. "I would think those
efforts will be renewed," he said.
In January 2002, 31 cars of a Canadian Pacific freight train derailed, releasing anhydrous ammonia into the air, killing one and
injuring hundreds of people.
Last year, U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum dismissed 31 lawsuits filed by victims, ruling that the Federal Railroad Safety Act
preempted state court jurisdiction of any claims. He also ruled that the law provided no relief for victims in the case.
Attorneys appealed, and while those appeals were pending, they took their battle to Congress, which last year amended the law - stating
that victims can indeed sue for damages. The appeals court pointed to that amendment Wednesday, ruling 2-1 that the law
now allows victims to make their case in state court after all.
In its ruling regarding Lundeen vs. the Canadian Pacific Railway, the appeals court said that the amendment is constitutional and
ordered the case back to U.S. District Court, which should then send it back to state court.
Robert Hopper, another attorney for Zimmerman Reed, said the amendment simply clarified Congress' intent that the Federal Rail Safety
Act shouldn't close the door to those victims' claims when it wrote the original law in 1970. "We went to Congress and simply
asked, What did you mean?" Hopper said.
But Timothy Thornton, an attorney for Canadian Pacific, said his client will seek a rehearing and, if necessary, review by the U.S.
Supreme Court. The appeals court judge who dissented in the ruling, C. Arlen Beam, wrote that the appeals court misapplied the
amendment and that federal law still should preempt state jurisdiction in the case.
"Everything we had to say, Judge Beam said," Thornton said. "It's far from over."
|
