Opinion ID: 4520066
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: On January 16, 2014, Lanham was seriously injured while working for his employer, BNSF, on a section of train tracks near Houston, Texas. Lanham generally worked for BNSF as a track laborer on a rail production “gang” in Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota. Rail production gangs work to repair and replace rail on train tracks. Lanham’s regular gang “shut down” during the winter months. To avoid a layoff during the winter of 2013, Lanham bid for a position replacing railroad ties in Texas, with the intent to return to his regular rail gang position when it opened back up in March. Lanham was working on a section of train tracks in Texas when he hit his foot with a sledge hammer and sustained injuries as a result. Lanham filed a complaint in the district court under FELA, alleging BNSF was negligent in failing to provide him with a reasonably safe place to work, reasonably safe equipment for work, and reasonably safe methods for work. Lanham further alleged that his injuries were a result of BNSF’s negligence. At the time Lanham’s complaint was filed, he was a resident of Dorchester, Nebraska. BNSF is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas. BNSF currently operates railroads in 28 states, including Nebraska. Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 21-19,152 (Reissue 2012), BNSF registered with the Secretary of State to do business in Nebraska and designated an agent for service of process in the state. BNSF filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the district court had neither general nor specific jurisdiction over BNSF. Citing a U.S. Supreme Court case decided in - 127 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports LANHAM v. BNSF RAILWAY CO. Cite as 305 Neb. 124 2014,2 BNSF argued the district court lacked general jurisdiction because BNSF was incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Fort Worth; thus, BNSF is not “‘at home’” in Nebraska. BNSF also argued that the district court lacked specific jurisdiction over BNSF because Lanham’s injuries had occurred in Texas, and the complaint failed to allege any connection between those injuries and Nebraska, or BNSF’s activities in Nebraska. The district court overruled the motion to dismiss after finding that BNSF consented to personal jurisdiction by registering to do business in Nebraska under § 21-19,152. In its order, the district court extensively relied on the holding of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska in Consolidated Infrastructure Group, Inc. v. USIC, LLC.3 Consolidated Infrastructure Group, Inc. is an unpublished opinion in which the court concluded that under Nebraska law, “‘[b]y designating an agent upon whom process may be served within this state, a defendant has consented to the jurisdiction in personam by the proper court’”4 based on this court’s prior holding in Mittelstadt v. Rouzer.5 Because the district court found that BNSF had consented to personal jurisdiction, the court did not engage in an analysis of BNSF’s minimum contacts in the state. However, it quoted Consolidated Infrasructure Group, Inc.6 and noted that BNSF’s “‘activities in this state are not the sort of random or attenuated conduct that has been insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court.’” 2 Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 134 S. Ct. 746, 187 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2014). 3 Consolidated Infrastructure Group, Inc. v. USIC, LLC, No. 8:16CV472, 2017 WL 2222917 (D. Neb. May 18, 2017) (unpublished opinion). 4 Id. at  (quoting Mittelstadt v. Rouzer, 213 Neb. 178, 328 N.W.2d 467 (1982)). 5 Mittelstadt, supra note 4. 6 See Consolidated Infrastructure Group, Inc., supra note 3. - 128 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports LANHAM v. BNSF RAILWAY CO. Cite as 305 Neb. 124 BNSF subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over BNSF and, alternatively, that Lanham was unable to present any evidence of BNSF’s negligence. The district court overruled the motion on the issue of jurisdiction and sustained it on the issue of negligence. Lanham appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of BNSF. BNSF filed a cross-appeal, arguing that the district court erred in holding it had personal jurisdiction over BNSF. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Lanham’s sole assignment of error is that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of BNSF. In its cross-appeal, BNSF assigns, restated, that the district court erred in holding BNSF’s registration to do business in the State of Nebraska constituted consent to personal jurisdiction.