CGTC v. Norfolk Southern: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary Tag: Manual revert |
||
| 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 = | |concurring = 2 | ||
|dissenting = 2 | |dissenting = 2 | ||
|concur/dissent = | |concur/dissent = Con | ||
|prior actions = | |prior actions = | ||
|appealed from = | |appealed from = | ||
Revision as of 23:42, 4 May 2024
| CGTC v. Norfolk Southern | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Full case name | Central Gateway Turtle du Canada v. Norfolk Southern Corporation |
| Started | December 27, 2021 |
| Decided | July 19, 2022 |
| Case history | |
| Subsequent action(s) | Norfolk Southern Corporation required to replace the wrecked SD32-ECO locomotive with an equal or greater quality locomotive |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Mark R. Hornak Cathy Bissoon Susan Paradise Baxter Marilyn Horan Nicholas Ranjan William S. Stickman IV |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Mark R. Hornak |
| Concurrence | 2 |
| Concur/dissent | Con |
| Dissent | 2 |
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.