Roth v. Norfalco, 10-2524 (3d Cir. 2011)

Opinion by Smith, J.:

The plaintiff worked as an acid-truck unloader for the P.H. Glatfelter Company, a paper manufacturer based in York, Pennsylvania.  As part of his job duties, he was responsible for depressurizing trucks filled with sulfuric acid, inserting a hose into the top of the truck, and then siphoning the acid out of the truck and into the paper company's storage tanks. 

While attempting to unload a truck of acid, the plaintiff encountered an unexplained mechanical difficulty.  At the instruction of his supervisor, he moved on to a second truck, but left a set unloading pipes connected to the first truck.  Later in the week he attempted to remove the pipes believing - mistakenly - that the truck was appropriately depressurized.  It was not, and when he withdrew the pipes, acid sprayed across his face and chest, causing serious injuries.  He brought suit against the truck's owner and operator, Norfalco, under a theory of common law negligence.

Norfalco argued that the federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act ("HMTA") preempted state legislation and common law with respect to the plaintiff's claims.  They denied liability on the basis that their truck complied with all the requirements of that statutes, and moved for summary judgment.  The district court agreed, granted summary judgment, and Roth appealed.  The Third Circuit Court of appeals held that the HMTA did indeed preempt state legislation and common law, and therefore affirmed the dismissal by the district court.