LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

A Union Pacific conductor says he slipped on oil on a locomotive walkway in a rail yard and was injured. The Supreme Court is being asked whether the locomotive was still "in use" during that temporary stop and whether missed daily safety inspections let a jury weigh whether the harm was foreseeable.

The case is pending, and oral argument has not been scheduled. LeDure argues the locomotive remained in use during a temporary yard stop, while Union Pacific relies on the Seventh Circuit's view that it was not in use then.

The answer could shape when federal locomotive safety rules apply in rail yards and when injured workers get to present negligence claims to a jury. For example, it could affect a conductor hurt while checking equipment during a brief stop in a yard.

Watch for oral argument or another scheduling move from the Court. No decision window is available yet.

The Court is being asked whether a locomotive in a rail yard during a temporary stop is still "in use" under federal safety rules. It is also being asked whether alleged missed daily inspections let a jury assess foreseeability.

It could affect when railroads must follow locomotive safety rules in yards and when injured workers can get negligence claims before a jury. That matters in accidents involving slippery walkways and routine yard work.

Watch for the Supreme Court to set oral argument or make another scheduling move. There is no decision window available yet.