United States Sixth Circuit

In an action by rail workers alleging injuries from exposure to hydrochloric acid fumes, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed where Defendant rail carrier's failure to perform a ten-point inspection under 49 C.F.R. section 173.31 did not violate that regulation because it did not apply to rail carriers such as Defendant.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/08/2009
• Published 07/08/2009

Judges

• Before MARTIN, SUHRHEINRICH, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Martin J. Holmes, Jr., Shindler, Neff, Holmes, Schlageter & Mohler, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellants.  Dan Himmelfarb, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  E.J. Leizerman, Michael Jay Leizerman, E.J. Leizerman & Associates, LLC, Toledo Ohio, for Appellants.  Dan Himmelfarb, Evan Mark Tager, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C., James L. O'Connell, James F. Brockman, David E. Williamson, Lindhorst & Dreidame, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.