Court Opinion

ID: 9480817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:59:33.339076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:46.181493
License: Public Domain

MANSMANN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Because I would find as a matter of law that the FELA permits a recovery for emotional distress and because I believe that Holliday has alleged facts sufficient to create a genuine issue as to whether Conrail’s negligence caused him to suffer injury as a result of emotional distress, I would vacate the grant of summary judgment and permit the claim to be presented to a jury.
The remedial purpose of the FELA cannot be disputed. As stated by the Supreme Court in Atchison T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557, 107 S.Ct. 1410, 94 L.Ed.2d 563 (1987): “We have recognized generally that the FELA is a broad remedial statute, and have adopted a ‘standard of liberal construction in order to accomplish Congress's objectives.’ ” 480 U.S. at 562, 107 S.Ct. at 1414. Therefore, because “FELA jurisprudence gleans guidance from common law developments, ... whether one can recover for emotional injury might rest on a variety of subtle and intricate distinctions related to the nature of the injury and the character of the tortious activity.” 480 U.S. at 568, 107 S.Ct. at 14.
The FELA carried forward the common law duty of requiring the railroad employer to provide a safe place for the employee to work. See Bailey v. Central Vermont Ry., 319 U.S. 350, 352, 63 S.Ct. 1062, 1063, 87 L.Ed. 1444 (1943) (under common law the “duty of employer to use reasonable care in furnishing his employees with a safe place to work was plain”); Payne v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 309 F.2d 546 (1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 827, 83 S.Ct. 1865, 10 L.Ed.2d 1051 (1963) (same). Thus, if an injury occurs because the railroad has failed to provide a safe workplace, the railroad has breached its duty and can be found liable for the foreseeable harm. Ackley v. Chicago & Northwestern Transp. Co., 820 F.2d 263, 267 (8th Cir.1987) (“duty to provide a reasonably safe place to work, while measured by foreseeability standards, is broader under the stat*428ute than a general duty of due care”). I agree with the statement by our sister court of appeals in Fletcher v. Union Pacific R.R., 621 F.2d 902 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1110, 101 S.Ct. 918, 66 L.Ed.2d 839 (1981), that the duty to provide a safe workplace includes the duty not to assign an employee to a job for which the individual is not suited or prepared. 621 F.2d at 909. Simply stated, I would hold that the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to hold that Conrail created an unsafe workplace here by assigning an employee to a position for which he was unqualified.
The majority compares Holliday’s complaint with those of four overworked and overstressed employees in Kraus v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 723 F.Supp. 1073 (E.D.Pa.1989), appeal dismissed, 899 F.2d 1360 (3d Cir.1990). In Kraus, the district court noted that the plaintiffs had failed to allege outrageous conduct, an element of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claims premised on negligent infliction of emotional distress, concluding that the stress was the result of general working conditions to which the plaintiffs subjected themselves by virtue of voluntarily undertaking their employment.
While Holliday has not alleged facts of outrageous behavior on the part of Conrail sufficient to support a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the facts demonstrate that his complaint was more than a mere disgruntlement with general working conditions. I would hold that the facts alleged illustrate the “subtle distinctions” referred to by the Supreme Court and distinguish Holliday’s claims from those of the employees in Kraus. Indeed, and the majority does not dispute, Holliday alleged that he was not qualified for the position in which Conrail placed him, that he was not examined as to his qualifications and that he was required to work without the supervision of a qualified pilot on several occasions. During this time he found himself throwing the wrong switches and, at one point, he was almost crushed during a switching operation. This near miss, which the majority dismisses as being insufficient to support an injury attributable to the job, indicates to me that Holliday had been placed in the “zone of danger” created by Conrail’s negligent assignment of Holliday to a position for which he was not qualified. See Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928) (duty owed to those who are foreseeably harmed by the conduct in question). Moreover, Holliday’s injuries were not limited to psychological distress but included substantial physical symptoms as well.
Because I believe that Holliday has alleged sufficient facts from which a rational trier of fact could conclude that his injuries were the result of Conrail’s negligence in assigning him to a position for which he was not qualified, I would vacate and remand for a jury trial.