Union Pacific Railroad Company v. William Nami
498 S.W.3d 890
| Tex. | 2016Background
- William Nami, a Union Pacific tamping-machine operator, worked in Brazoria County (Sweeny), an area heavily infested with mosquitoes after Hurricane Ike (2008); he was repeatedly bitten at work and later developed West Nile encephalitis.
- Union Pacific issued company-wide West Nile warnings in 2008 but did not provide repellent, mow the narrow right-of-way, or spray pesticides; Nami testified he did not see the bulletin and missed some safety meetings.
- At trial the jury was instructed that Union Pacific could be negligent only in the manner/extent of warnings or making mosquito spray available, and that railroad negligence need only be “a cause, in whole or in part” of the disease; the jury apportioned fault 80% to Union Pacific and awarded damages.
- On appeal Union Pacific argued the common-law doctrine of ferae naturae (no duty regarding indigenous wild animals/insects) barred liability; the court of appeals rejected that defense because it found the railroad had created or failed to remove conditions that attracted mosquitoes.
- The Texas Supreme Court reviewed whether ferae naturae applies under FELA and whether, as a matter of federal-substantive law, the doctrine negates a railroad’s duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FELA incorporates ferae naturae as a categorical no-duty defense | Nami: the question whether the railroad failed to warn or provide repellent is for the jury; foreseeability and breach should be decided by factfinder | Union Pacific: mosquitoes are indigenous; under ferae naturae it owed no duty to protect against wild insects and cannot be negligent as a matter of law | Court: ferae naturae applies; owner owes no duty for indigenous wild animals it did not possess, attract, or harbor; it negates liability here as a matter of law |
| Whether failure to maintain tamper cab or mow ROW created an actionable attraction of mosquitoes | Nami: disrepair of cab and vegetation created/allowed mosquitoes in tamper and increased risk | Union Pacific: it did not attract mosquitoes; conditions were part of the natural environment and not uniquely attributable to railroad | Court: no evidence railroad attracted infected mosquitoes or could have meaningfully reduced the area risk; cases imposing liability involved property-created attractors, which are absent here |
| Adequacy of warnings / provision of repellent as negligence theory | Nami: Union Pacific warned generally but failed to inform him and failed to provide repellent—those failures could have contributed to his infection | Union Pacific: it issued warnings and could not be expected to prevent indigenous mosquitoes; providing repellent not required as a matter of law | Court: issuance of general warnings to employees and the obvious local mosquito hazard meant railroad took steps; failure to provide repellent did not create legal duty here under ferae naturae |
| Role of foreseeability and FELA’s relaxed causation standard | Nami: foreseeability of infection and FELA’s relaxed causation support jury submission | Union Pacific: even under FELA, the common-law rule excludes liability for indigenous wild animals | Court: FELA incorporates common-law principles unless Congress displaced them; Gottshall and common-law ferae naturae limit duty—here the doctrine bars recovery despite FELA’s relaxed causation standard |
Key Cases Cited
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (FELA’s relaxed causation standard; foreseeability measures duty but causation requires only that employer negligence played any part)
- Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (Sup. Ct. 1994) (FELA is grounded in common-law negligence principles; common-law doctrines apply unless FELA expressly rejects them)
- Gallick v. Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 108 (Sup. Ct. 1963) (jury question on insect-bite causation; employer liable where evidence could support inference insects emanated from railroad property)
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557 (Sup. Ct. 1987) (railroad owes duty to use reasonable care to provide a safe workplace)
- Spring Co. v. Edgar, 99 U.S. 645 (Sup. Ct. 1878) (historic common-law discussion of liability for keeping dangerous animals)
- Pehowic v. Erie Lackawanna R.R., 430 F.2d 697 (3d Cir. 1970) (bees: employer liability where railroad knew or should have known and failed to mitigate)
- Grano v. Long Island R.R. Co., 818 F. Supp. 613 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (Lyme disease: employer breached duty where it knew of tick infestation and failed to take measures)
- Deviney v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 786 N.W.2d 902 (Neb. 2010) (state supreme court: foreseeability and failure to warn/abate standing water created jury issue under FELA)