Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall
512 U.S. 532, 114 S.Ct. 2396, 129 L.Ed.2d 427 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), a plaintiff may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress only if they sustained a physical impact as a result of the defendant's negligence or were placed in immediate risk of physical harm by that conduct.
Facts:
- Case of James Gottshall: Gottshall was part of a Conrail work crew replacing track on an extremely hot and humid day under time pressure.
- Gottshall's longtime friend and coworker, Richard Johns, collapsed from a heart attack.
- A supervisor, Michael Norvick, initially ordered the crew back to work but later tried to radio for help, finding the radio inoperative due to Conrail's maintenance.
- Gottshall administered CPR to Johns for 40 minutes, but Johns died. The supervisor then ordered the crew to continue working within sight of Johns' covered body for several hours.
- Following the incident, Gottshall was diagnosed with major depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, experiencing severe physical and psychological symptoms.
- Case of Alan Carlisle: Carlisle worked as a train dispatcher for Conrail under highly stressful conditions due to staff reductions, outdated equipment, and long hours.
- After being promoted to trainmaster, his responsibilities and work hours increased, requiring him to work 12- to 15-hour shifts for weeks at a time.
- Carlisle began to experience insomnia, headaches, depression, and weight loss, culminating in a nervous breakdown.
Procedural Posture:
- James Gottshall sued Conrail in the U.S. District Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of Conrail.
- Gottshall, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which reversed the District Court's decision and remanded for trial.
- Alan Carlisle sued Conrail in the U.S. District Court, where a jury returned a verdict in his favor, awarding him damages.
- Conrail, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the jury's verdict.
- Conrail petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review both Third Circuit decisions, and the petition was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the common law 'zone of danger' test provide the proper standard for evaluating claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes. The 'zone of danger' test is the proper standard for evaluating claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress under FELA. This test allows recovery for emotional injury only for plaintiffs who sustain a physical impact or are placed in immediate risk of physical harm by the defendant's negligent conduct. The court rejects the Third Circuit’s fact-specific 'genuineness' test, finding it unworkably subjective and likely to lead to unpredictable and unlimited liability. The zone of danger test best reconciles FELA's focus on physical perils with common-law principles, has historical support from the era when FELA was enacted, and provides a necessary and workable limit on liability. Claims based purely on work-related stress, like Carlisle's, are not cognizable under FELA as they do not fall within the zone of danger.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
No. The restrictive 'zone of danger' test is inconsistent with FELA's broad remedial purpose and liberal construction. The fear of 'infinite liability,' which animates common-law restrictions, is misplaced in the FELA context because the class of potential plaintiffs is limited to on-the-job railroad employees, not the public at large. The FELA was an 'avowed departure' from common-law rules, and the Court should not import a restrictive tort doctrine that bars recovery for meritorious claims. The Third Circuit’s approach, which focused on the genuineness and gravity of the worker's injury in a fact-bound inquiry, was more faithful to Congress's intent to provide a broad remedy for workers.
Concurring - Justice Souter
The Court’s adoption of the zone of danger test is a faithful exercise of its duty to develop a federal common law of negligence under FELA. Congress enacted a general statute, leaving courts to fashion remedies analogous to the development of common law torts, with the intent to provide liberal recovery for workers. The Court's decision to adopt the zone of danger test is well within the judicial discretion left to the federal courts under FELA and is informed by reference to evolving common-law principles.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a uniform, but restrictive, federal standard for negligent infliction of emotional distress claims under FELA. By adopting the 'zone of danger' test, the Court significantly limited the scope of a railroad's liability for emotional harm, precluding recovery for bystander trauma (unless the bystander was also in danger) and for stress-related occupational injuries. This ruling prioritizes limiting unpredictable liability over FELA's traditionally liberal remedial interpretation, creating a higher bar for employees seeking compensation for purely emotional injuries and protecting employers from a broad range of stress-based claims.
Unlock the full brief for Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall