Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Zeagler
293 Ga. 582
| Ga. | 2013Background
- William Zeagler, a Norfolk Southern conductor with 33 years’ service, was injured when his train struck a logging truck at a grade crossing; he sued Norfolk Southern under FELA for negligent failure to train crew how to avoid or mitigate injuries in imminent grade-crossing collisions.
- The train crew had used several safety measures (reduced speed, horn, lights); Zeagler panicked and attempted to flee rather than brace, sustaining serious back injuries and PTSD; Norfolk Southern’s records showed many grade-crossing collisions and employee injuries.
- Zeagler presented expert affidavits (a retired trainmaster, an ergonomist, and a treating psychiatrist) opining that reasonable training (e.g., a standard brace position and emergency procedures) would generally reduce injury and panic, creating disputed facts on breach and causation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Norfolk Southern, concluding the railroad had no duty to provide specific emergency training and that Zeagler failed to show the training would have helped.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide (1) whether reversal was erroneous and (2) whether Zeagler’s FELA failure-to-train claim is preempted or precluded by FRA/FRSA regulations.
- The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals: (a) duty under FELA can include reasonable training for foreseeable hazards like grade-crossing collisions; (b) disputed issues of foreseeability (here undisputed), breach, and causation preclude summary judgment; (c) FRA regulations did not preclude the FELA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether railroad had a legal duty under FELA to train employees about imminent grade-crossing collisions | Zeagler: FELA’s duty to furnish a safe workplace includes reasonable training to avoid/mitigate foreseeable hazards such as grade-crossing collisions | Norfolk Southern: No legal duty to provide specific emergency training for grade-crossing collisions | Held: Duty exists as a matter of law to provide reasonable training for foreseeable workplace hazards (grade crossings included) |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on breach and causation | Zeagler: Expert evidence creates genuine disputes that railroad breached its duty and that lack of training contributed to injuries | Norfolk Southern: No feasible training could address the many collision variants; evidence fails on breach and causation | Held: Trial court improperly resolved factual disputes against Zeagler; evidence raises genuine issues of breach and causation requiring jury resolution |
| Whether foreseeability is for court or jury | Zeagler: grade-crossing collisions are plainly foreseeable and therefore relevant to duty/breach | Norfolk Southern: treated foreseeability as part of duty and argued no duty if prevention not possible | Held: Foreseeability is a factual element for the jury (but here it is undisputed because collisions are frequent); duty is a legal question separate from foreseeability |
| Whether FRA/FRSA regulations preclude or preempt the FELA failure-to-train claim | Zeagler: FELA is a federal remedy; no FRA regulation substantially subsumes or conflicts with his claim | Norfolk Southern: FRSA regulations (e.g., 49 C.F.R. Part 217, Part 240) and federal safety scheme preclude the FELA claim | Held: FELA claim is not preempted by state law (preemption inapplicable) and Norfolk Southern failed to show any FRSA regulation substantially subsumes or creates an intolerable conflict; claim not precluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557 (recognition that FELA imposes duty to furnish safe workplace; discussion of preclusion standards)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (FELA should be liberally construed; eased negligence-per-se principles)
- Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 372 U.S. 108 (foreseeability as essential ingredient of FELA negligence; jury question)
- McBride v. CSX Transp., 562 U.S. 64 (clarifies foreseeability and jury’s role in breach and foreseeability determinations)
- Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (FELA’s relaxed causation: employer negligence need only have played any part in producing injury)
- Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U.S. 53 (preserve jury role in FELA negligence cases)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (FELA’s broad causation language and the statute’s focus on railroad workplace injuries)