CGTC v. Norfolk Southern: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 16: Line 16:
|number of judges  = 6
|number of judges  = 6
|decision by        = {{wp|Mark R. Hornak}}
|decision by        = {{wp|Mark R. Hornak}}
|concurring        = 2
|concurring        = Marilyn Horan<br>Cathy Bissoon
|dissenting        = 2
|dissenting        = William S. Stickman IV<br>Christy C.
|concur/dissent    = Con
|concur/dissent    =  
|prior actions      =  
|prior actions      =  
|appealed from      =  
|appealed from      =  
|appealed to        =  
|appealed to        =  
|outcome = Norfolk Southern Corporation required to replace the wrecked SD32-ECO locomotive with an equal or greater quality locomotive
|Outcome            = Norfolk Southern Corporation required to replace the wrecked SD32-ECO locomotive with an equal or greater quality locomotive
|related actions    =  
|related actions    =  
|opinions          =  
|opinions          =  

Revision as of 23:48, 4 May 2024

CGTC v. Norfolk Southern
Pennsylvania-western.gif
CourtUnited States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Full case nameCentral Gateway Turtle du Canada v. Norfolk Southern Corporation
StartedDecember 27, 2021 (2021-12-27)
DecidedJuly 19, 2022 (2022-07-19)
Outcome
Norfolk Southern Corporation required to replace the wrecked SD32-ECO locomotive with an equal or greater quality locomotive
Court membership
Judges sittingMark R. Hornak
Cathy Bissoon
Susan Paradise Baxter
Marilyn Horan
Nicholas Ranjan
William S. Stickman IV
Case opinions
Decision byMark R. Hornak
ConcurrenceMarilyn Horan
Cathy Bissoon
DissentWilliam S. Stickman IV
Christy C.

CGTC v. Norfolk Southern was a court case over the head-on collision of CGTC locomotive #5608 and an NS locomotive due to a PTC failure on the Norfolk Southern locomotive. CGTC would end up attempting to sue the Norfolk Southern Corporation as a result of this, and after approximately 204 days, the court would rule that the Norfolk Southern Corporation was liable for the incident, and that they would be required to replace the unsalvageable locomotive with an equal or greater quality locomotive.