Co., 378 F.3d 502, 507 (5th Cir.2004); see also Lane v. R.A. Sims, Jr., Inc., 241 F.3d 439, 442 (5th Cir.2001); Dixon v. CSX Transp., Inc., 990 F.2d 1440, 1442 n. 2 (4th Cir.1993); Rice v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Pacific Ry. Co., 955 F.Supp. 739, 740 (E.D.Ky.1997). FELA provides a cause of action to a railroad employee for on which allows a State to “adopt or continue in force a law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety until the Secretary of Transportation prescribes a regulation or issues an order covering the subject matter of the State requirement.” 49 U.S.C. § 20106. The statute explicitly states: “Laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad safety shall be nationally uniform to the extent practicable.” Id. A state may adop . 1105, 1107-08 (N.D.Ala.1996) (<HOLDING>) (citing 49 U.S.C. § 20106). Other courts have
holding claims that a railroad crossing was extrahazardous that warning devices were inadequate and that the train was not operating at a speed commensurate with the hazardous nature of the crossing were all preempted by federal law holding that when the federal government applies its regulations and requirements to signal systems through inspection and testing the result is preemption by the frsa of the fela claims based on the design and operation of those signal systems holding osha regulations admissible as evidence of negligence under fela holding that where train speed and locomotive design complied with federal regulations railroad employees fela claims were preempted by the frsa since congress has established a policy of national uniformity of laws rules regulations orders and standards recognizing state laws can be preempted by federal regulations as well as by federal legislation