Rankin v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Full title: SUZANNE K. RANKIN, Plaintiff(s), v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Sep 30, 2005

Civil Action No. 04-cv-00372-OES-PAC (D. Colo. Sep. 30, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 04-cv-00372-OES-PAC.

September 30, 2005

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR RULING

O. SCHLATTER, Magistrate Judge

The railroad has filed a request that asks me to rule on the issue of preemption in regard to C.R.S. § 42-4-103, et seq. The railroad directs me to its motion and reply on this question.

The railroad has not asked in its pleadings that I determine that the statute has preempted the field. It has asked me to find, as a matter of fact, that certain physical devices that were placed at the Clay Street crossing by the railroad and its independent contractor comply with the provisions of the statute. In its reply, the railroad stated that I "should not admit evidence or testimony suggesting that the roadway barricades in this case did not comply with the MUTCD." I have no evidence from which I can make that determination, and I decline to do so.

ORDER

It is therefore ORDERED that the Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's Request for Ruling on the Issue of State Law Preemption [Doc. 100, filed -0/29/2005] is GRANTED. In response to the railroad's request that I determine as a matter of fact that the railroad's barricades complied with the uniform law, the request is denied.