With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". against KCS for negligence based on fadure to slow the train as it approached the crossing is therefore not preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. § 20101, et seq., the court is unpersuaded. Simply put, regardless of any “specific local safety hazard,” because the train was traveling within the maximum speed allowed by federal regulations for the class of track on which it was running, the speed of the train is considered reasonable as a matter of federal law. As the court held previously, Because the train was being operated below the maximum rate of speed mandated by federal regulation, any negligence claim ... for excessive speed, regardless of the track conditions, is preempted by federal law. See accord Woods v. Amtrak, 982 F.Supp. 409, 411 (N.D.Miss.1997) (<HOLDING>); Wright v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 868

A: holding that because the train was operating below the federal speed limit plaintiff could not maintain a claim for negligence based on excessive speed
B: holding that a ttca claim based on an officers allegedly negligent use of his service weapon was a claim for intentional tort not negligence
C: holding that the indemnification contract between an owner of train tracks and an owner and operator of a train clearly and unequivocally required indemnification for the track owners negligence given that the contract explicitly stated that the indemnification provisions shall apply regardless of considerations of fault or negligence
D: holding that the plaintiff could bring an action for negligent misrepresentation although the plaintiff could not sue on the contract because the contract was void
A.