Smith v. Rail Link, Inc.
697 F.3d 1304
10th Cir.2012Background
- Rail Link is a railroad-switching company under Rail Link, Inc.; GWI is its corporate parent.
- Smith, employed by Rail Link at the Belle Ayre Mine, was injured in August 2007 and sued Rail Link and GWI under FELA.
- Rail Link contracts to move Foundation Coal’s shipments at Belle Ayre Mine; Rail Link’s fee is based on quantity moved; Rail Link does not own rail cars or track at the site.
- GWI owns many rail subsidiaries and GWRSI provides administrative services to Rail Link and other subsidiaries; GWI and Rail Link share managers and directors.
- Rail Link’s operations at the Belle Ayre Mine were not acting as a common carrier; Smith alleged both Rail Link and GWI were common carriers or employers under FELA.
- District court granted summary judgment to Rail Link and GWI; Smith appeals, challenging both parties’ statuses for FELA liability and raising a potential jurisdictional issue about whether FELA elements are jurisdictional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rail Link is a FELA common carrier | Smith argues Rail Link’s nationwide operations and contracts render it a common carrier. | Rail Link contends it does not operate as a common carrier at the Belle Ayre Mine and its other activities do not make it a common carrier. | Rail Link is not a common carrier under FELA. |
| Whether GWI was Smith’s employer under common-law principles | Smith argues GWI exercised control akin to an employer via administrative and safety control. | GWI asserts no day-to-day control over Rail Link’s operations and thus no employer status. | GWI was not Smith’s employer under Kelley v. Southern Pacific Co. |
| Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction given FELA's prerequisites | Not stated as a separate argument; implied challenge to jurisdiction if employer/common-carrier status is required. | Unaddressed directly; Sullivan v. Scoular Grain Co. used to sustain jurisdiction. | District court had subject-matter jurisdiction; Sullivan governs the ingredient-versus-jurisdiction distinction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1912) (FELA liability depends on being part of interstate carrier family)
- Wells Fargo & Co. v. Taylor, 254 U.S. 175 (U.S. 1920) (defines common carrier as operating a going railroad for the public)
- Edwards v. Pac. Fruit Express Co., 390 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1968) (distinguishes related activities from true railroading)
- Kelley v. Southern Pacific Co., 419 U.S. 318 (U.S. 1974) (employment determination in FELA uses common-law master-servant concepts)
- Sullivan v. Scoular Grain Co., 930 F.2d 798 (10th Cir. 1991) (affirmed jurisdictional/essential-ingredients distinction under Sullivan)
- Reed v. Pennsylvania R.R., 351 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1956) (discusses interstate commerce employment as relevant to FELA)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (distinguishes jurisdictional requirements from elements of a claim)
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. McBride, 131 S. Ct. 2630 (U.S. 2011) (notes on limitations and jurisdictional versus essential elements in FELA)