With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not overcome federal preemption by arguing that defendant operated the train at an excessive speed in light of allegedly hazardous track conditions, such as overgrown vegetation and the angle of the crossing). Wilson v. Kansas City Southern, Civil Action No. 4:01CV323LN, slip op. at 4. In addition to these negligence claims relating to proper lookout, train speed and warnings, plaintiff claims that KCS negligently failed to maintain traffic control devices at the Hickory crossing. In connection with its motion, KCS has presented evidence that federally-funded warning devices, in the form of warning signs, were present at the time of the accident, which are adequate as a matter of law. See Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344, 357-58, 120 S.Ct. 1467, 146 L.Ed.2d 374 (2000) (<HOLDING>). In response to KCS’s motion on this point,

A: holding adoption by secretary of transportation of manual on uniform traffic control devices issued under federal railroad safety act preempted state common law standards of care for grade crossings
B: holding that where evidence shows that federal funds were expended for installation for warning devices or signs at railroad crossing state law claims based on adequacy of those warning devices are preempted by the federal railroad safety act
C: holding that in a personal injury action against a railroad a report containing the conclusions of a hearing examiner of the public utilities commission regarding an alleged hazardous railroad crossing was obvious hearsay
D: 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
B.