Barrett v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
361 Or. 115
| Or. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff, an Oregon resident, sued Union Pacific Railroad (Delaware corp., principal place of business Omaha) in Oregon for injuries sustained while working in Idaho operating a spiker machine, alleging negligent maintenance and crew reductions.
- Union Pacific operates in 23 states, including long‑standing, substantial operations in Oregon (≈1,100 miles of track, ~1,700 Oregon employees, significant Oregon revenues and payroll).
- Trial court denied Union Pacific’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; Union Pacific sought a writ of mandamus; Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the issue.
- Plaintiff argued Oregon had (1) general jurisdiction under FELA §56, (2) general jurisdiction under due process because of Union Pacific’s substantial, continuous Oregon activities, and (3) in the alternative, specific jurisdiction.
- Court analyzed federal due‑process limits on general jurisdiction (principally Daimler) before addressing FELA §56 and specific jurisdiction; the court concluded FELA §56 does not confer personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General jurisdiction (Due Process) | Oregon can assert all‑purpose jurisdiction because Union Pacific’s Oregon operations are substantial and continuous | Daimler bars general jurisdiction absent place of incorporation, principal place of business, or exceptional circumstances | Held: Oregon may not exercise general jurisdiction over Union Pacific; Daimler forecloses "doing business" as sufficient basis |
| FELA §56 effect on personal jurisdiction | §56 (1910) and FELA history authorize state courts to exercise jurisdiction over railroads doing business in the state (an "exceptional" railroad category) | §56 addresses venue and concurrent subject‑matter jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction; historical "doing business" assumptions pre‑Daimler no longer control | Held: §56 does not confer personal jurisdiction; prior FELA cases assumed personal jurisdiction under older "doing business" rules, which Daimler rejected |
| Specific jurisdiction | (Raised on appeal) Oregon can exercise specific jurisdiction given plaintiff’s residence and Union Pacific’s Oregon contacts | No developed record connecting the claim (Idaho injury) to Union Pacific’s Oregon activities | Held: Record is insufficient to find specific jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to develop necessary Oregon‑specific facts |
| Procedural remedy (mandamus) | Trial court’s denial of dismissal should be reversed | Court should issue mandamus to correct jurisdictional error | Held: Peremptory writ to issue — trial court lacked personal jurisdiction; mandamus granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction limited to a corporation’s place of incorporation and principal place of business except in exceptional cases)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general jurisdiction exists only when affiliations render defendant "essentially at home")
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (foundation for specific jurisdiction and "minimum contacts")
- Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952) (exceptional wartime circumstances supporting general jurisdiction)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (insufficient contacts for general jurisdiction)
- Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Kepner, 314 U.S. 44 (1941) (interpreting FELA venue provision; did not address personal jurisdiction)
- Miles v. Illinois Central R. Co., 315 U.S. 698 (1942) (FELA litigation context; assumed forum jurisdiction where railroad was doing business)
- Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977) (in rem jurisdiction subject to International Shoe minimum contacts standard)