Foster v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
154 A.D.3d 543
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Charles Foster, a machinist employed by the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (Port Authority), sued alleging negligence under FELA and under state common law.
- Plaintiff claimed the Port Authority negligently continued his employment despite his disability, causing injuries that manifested around June 2005.
- Complaint was filed in April 2008.
- Supreme Court (Bronx County) granted defendant's summary judgment motion dismissing both the FELA and common-law negligence claims.
- Appellate Division, First Department reviewed whether the Port Authority can be treated as an interstate "common carrier by railroad" under FELA and whether the facts permit FELA liability on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Port Authority is subject to FELA | Foster argues Port Authority acted as an interstate carrier in his employment-related injury | Port Authority contends it is not an interstate "common carrier by railroad" for this incident | Port Authority can be subject to FELA when negligent acts are connected to its interstate railway operations; summary judgment improper on this basis |
| Whether the challenged act (continuing employment despite disability) is related to interstate railway operations | Foster contends the decision was connected to railway operations and thus falls under FELA | Port Authority argues the employment decision is divorced from interstate operations | Court: It cannot be decided as a matter of law that the decision is divorced; triable issue exists |
| Whether Port Authority exercised sufficient supervisory control to bring employee within FELA | Foster points to defendant doctors evaluating him and setting work restrictions | Port Authority disputes FELA-level control | Court: Evidence of significant supervisory control (medical evaluations/restrictions) may suffice for FELA liability; summary judgment denied on FELA claim |
| Statute of limitations and duplicative state claim | Foster notes suit was timely (filed within 3 years of last manifestation) and seeks FELA relief; also sought common-law claim | Port Authority raised a limitations defense (not pleaded) and sought dismissal of both claims | Court: Defendant did not plead SOL; complaint filed within three years. FELA preempts state-law remedies; common-law negligence claim remains duplicative and is not reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Zuckerberg v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 75 A.D.3d 503 (App. Div. 2010) (Port Authority may be subject to FELA when negligent acts relate to interstate railway operations)
- Smith v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 226 A.D.2d 168 (App. Div. 1996) (supervisory control by employer can bring employee within ambit of FELA)
- Ganci v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 258 A.D.2d 386 (App. Div. 1999) (FELA wholly preempts state-law remedies for railway employees)
- Hyatt v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 16 A.D.3d 218 (App. Div. 2005) (FELA standards are more relaxed than common-law negligence)
- Anderson v. BNSF Ry., 380 Mont. 319 (Mont. 2015) (statute-of-limitations discussion for FELA-like claims; cited regarding timely filing)