Morris v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.
39 N.E.3d 1156
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Shawn Morris, a Union Pacific locomotive engineer, was knocked backward and injured by an unknown trespasser who fled through the nose door of an unlit, unlocked locomotive cab at Villa Grove, IL, after the train had arrived from Chicago en route to Salem.
- At the time the locomotive was being towed (no power), interior lights were off per company practice; Morris used a flashlight and could not see the trespasser until contact occurred.
- Morris sued under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), alleging Union Pacific negligently failed to secure/inspect/warn about trespassers and provide a safe workplace.
- Union Pacific moved for summary judgment, arguing the assault was an unforeseeable criminal act and the railroad had no duty to protect against it; the trial court granted summary judgment for the railroad, finding no evidence of recent, similar hazards in the same vicinity.
- On appeal the court applied FELA's relaxed foreseeability standard, relied heavily on Union Pacific's own safety rule (Rule 70.9) requiring employees to report/seek police assistance for unauthorized persons, and found sufficient evidence to submit foreseeability to a jury. Summary judgment was reversed and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morris presented sufficient evidence that the risk of injury from a trespasser was foreseeable under FELA | Morris argued that (1) Union Pacific's safety rule acknowledging that encounters with trespassers may be "unsafe," (2) prior reports/incidents of trespass on trains along the Chicago–Villa Grove–Salem route, and (3) trains stopping in isolated areas created a foreseeable risk; thus a jury should decide foreseeability | Union Pacific argued the injury was a random criminal act unforeseeable as a matter of law, pointing to lack of prior violent assaults at Villa Grove and no notice of a trespasser on that specific locomotive | Court held summary judgment improper: material facts on foreseeability exist (safety rule + prior reports/incidents) and under FELA's relaxed standard a jury must decide foreseeability; reversal and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 108 (U.S. 1963) (FELA’s relaxed foreseeability — employer liable when conditions increase likelihood of harm even without identical prior incidents)
- Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1957) (under FELA employer negligence need only have played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury)
- Syverson v. Consolidated R. Corp., 19 F.3d 824 (2d Cir. 1994) (presence of vagrants/trespassers and prior criminal activity can raise a jury question on foreseeability under FELA)
- Burns v. Penn Central Co., 519 F.2d 512 (2d Cir. 1975) (jury’s power to draw inferences in FELA is broader than in common law; foreseeability typically for jury)
- Dalka v. Wisconsin Central, Ltd., 811 N.W.2d 834 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012) (evidence of repeated trespass incidents and lack of security fencing can preclude summary judgment on foreseeability under FELA)