Greg Hanson v. Fort Worth & Western Railroad Company
02-21-00244-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 7, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Greg Hanson, a longtime roadmaster, fell from a hi‑rail truck on April 3, 2019, and sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging the Railroad negligently required him to work past exhaustion.
- Hanson had worked a long federal‑inspection day on Tuesday (about 16.5 hours) and told his supervisor that he had "put in 16/17 hours" and "might not be at work tomorrow, working too many hours." He nevertheless returned Wednesday, worked ~13 hours, and fell while dismounting the truck.
- The truck had safety features (grab handles, corrugated running board); Hanson had extensive railroad experience and no prior problems dismounting using the three‑point rule.
- Hanson relied on his Tuesday statements as giving the Railroad actual or constructive notice of dangerous fatigue; the Railroad asserted Hanson never said he was too fatigued to work the next day and had no duty to ensure employees did not work long hours.
- The Railroad moved for a hybrid traditional and no‑evidence summary judgment; the trial court granted it, and Hanson appealed. The appellate court affirmed, holding Hanson failed to raise a reasonable inference that the Railroad knew (or should have known) he was too exhausted to perform his duties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Railroad had notice (actual or constructive) that Hanson was too exhausted to work and thus breached its FELA duty | Hanson: his statements about working 16–17 hours and that he “might not be at work tomorrow” put the Railroad on notice of dangerous exhaustion | Railroad: Hanson never said he was too fatigued to work the next day; he worked the next day without complaint; nothing put Railroad on notice | Held: No. Court found the statements too vague; insufficient to reasonably infer Railroad knew he was incapable of safely performing Wednesday’s tasks. |
| Whether an employer has a duty under FELA to monitor/implement fatigue‑monitoring when aware an employee worked long hours | Hanson: a jury could infer Railroad had duty to inquire/monitor after learning of 16–17 hour day | Railroad: no legal duty to ensure employees do not work long hours; employees must report fatigue; employer not insurer | Held: No new duty imposed. Court declined to require monitoring or training about commonly known fatigue risks for experienced employees. |
| Sufficiency of evidence / reliance on circumstantial inference stacking | Hanson: inferences from his Tuesday statements (and management attitude) could support negligence | Railroad: evidence is meager; multiple, speculative inferences required; supervisor testimony contradicts notice | Held: No‑evidence and traditional summary judgment proper—Hanson’s circumstantial evidence was too attenuated and did not raise a genuine fact issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Nami, 498 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. 2016) (describing FELA duties and reliance on common‑law negligence principles)
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994) (railroad not insurer of employee safety; FELA grounded in negligence principles)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (2011) (FELA causation standard: employer negligence need only play any part in producing injury)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Williams, 85 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. 2002) (foreseeability is essential to duty under FELA)
- Ragland v. BNSF Ry. Co., 501 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016) (railroad breaches duty if it negligently assigns work beyond employee’s capacity when it knew/should have known of diminished capacity)
- Jones v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 942 A.2d 1103 (D.C. 2008) (duty not to assign tasks beyond employee capacity; focus on what railroad knew or should have known)
- Nabors Drilling, U.S.A., Inc. v. Escoto, 288 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. 2009) (no duty to warn or train employees about hazards that are obvious or commonly known, including fatigue)