Goodrich v. Long Island Rail Road Co.
654 F.3d 190
2d Cir.2011Background
- Goodrich, LIRR electrician, sues under FELA for NIED and IIED against LIRR, Russell, and John Doe A.
- Alleged conduct: sick-leave form falsely noting HIV positivity, posted publicly by Russell or an employee.
- District court dismissed IIED claim against LIRR for failure to satisfy zone of danger; dismissed individuals on statutory grounds.
- Nied claim withdrawn; IIED remains at issue for application of Gottshall zone of danger test.
- Court of appeals holds zone of danger applies to IIED under FELA; Goodrich did not allege physical impact or immediate risk.
- Court declines leave to amend; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Gottshall zone of danger apply to IIED under FELA? | Goodrich argues zone of danger does not apply to IIED under FELA. | LIRR contends zone of danger governs IIED claims under FELA. | Yes; zone of danger applies to IIED under FELA. |
| Must a FELA IIED plaintiff show physical impact or immediate risk of physical harm? | Goodrich contends no physical contact required for IIED under FELA. | LIRR requires physical impact or immediate risk to fall within zone of danger. | Plaintiff must show physical impact or immediate risk of physical harm. |
| Can a FELA IIED claim survive if the plaintiff never alleges physical impact or imminent danger? | Goodrich seeks relief for IIED despite lack of physical injury. | Without zone of danger, IIED under FELA is not cognizable. | Claim affirmed as dismissed; no extendable recovery without zone of danger. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gottshall v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 512 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1994) (zone of danger framework for NIED under FELA)
- Buckley v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 521 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1997) (physical impact requirement refined for exposure to danger)
- Higgins v. Metro-North R.R. Co., 318 F.3d 422 (2d Cir. 2003) (IIED under FELA considered; zone of danger discussed)
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1987) (FELA broad remedial construction; emotional injuries considered)
- Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Ayers, 538 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2003) (physical injury context allows pain and suffering awards without zone of danger)
- Jamison v. Encarnacion, 281 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1930) (historical recognition of intentional tort limits under FELA)
- Nelson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 235 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2000) (bounds of immediate risk interpretation in zone of danger context)