On February 24, 2026, the Ninth Circuit reversed a judgment from the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana awarding damages to plaintiffs in a Libby, Montana asbestos case, holding that BNSF Railway cannot be held strictly liable for asbestos-contaminated vermiculite that accumulated on its tracks and railyard.

From 1922 to 1990, federal law required BNSF (and its predecessors) to transport asbestos-containing vermiculite from the world’s largest vermiculite mine near Libby to destinations nationwide. Two former Libby residents, Thomas Wells and Joyce Walder, developed mesothelioma and died shortly after diagnosis. Their estates sued BNSF for negligence and strict liability. The jury found for plaintiffs on strict liability but for BNSF on negligence, awarding compensatory damages without punitive damage.

Trial evidence showed that vermiculite escaped from railcars during transport and switching, releasing asbestos dust that settled on BNSF’s property. The district court denied BNSF’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, rejecting the common carrier defense. It reasoned that BNSF’s federal duty to transport did not excuse failing to clean the railyard or improve facilities to contain and dispose of dust safely. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. Citing Montana Supreme Court precedent in BNSF Ry. Co. v. Eddy, the court applied Section 521 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts as an exception to strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities when conducted pursuant to a public duty imposed on common carriers.

The court held that plaintiffs’ strict liability theory arose directly from BNSF’s statutory obligation to transport the vermiculite under 49 U.S.C. § 11101(a). Federal law defines “transportation” broadly to include delivery, storage, handling, and related services. The accumulation of asbestos dust during transport and at the railyard fell within this duty.

The Ninth Circuit rejected the district court’s narrower view that no public duty required BNSF to prevent open-air accumulation of uncontained asbestos material, and that avoiding cleanup served BNSF’s own interests by reducing delays. There was no evidence that BNSF skipped maintenance to save money rather than fulfill its transport obligations. This decision reinforces the common carrier exception under Montana law: when a railroad’s alleged abnormally dangerous condition stems directly from federally mandated transportation activities, strict liability does not apply, even for incidental releases and accumulations. This ruling may limit strict liability exposure for railroads in similar legacy contamination cases tied to historically regulated transport. It may reduce successful claims in the many remaining Libby-related asbestos suits pending in Montana courts, shifting focus to negligence theories (where the jury here found no liability) or claims against other parties like the mine operator. Rail carriers facing environmental or toxic tort suits can more confidently invoke the exception when the hazard arises from mandatory common carrier duties, potentially encouraging settlement or dismissal of strict liability counts in comparable cases.