*1 Acting as Personal MARAZZATO, SR., LEO F. Representative of the Heirs and on Behalf in Interest of
Successors MARAZZATO, JR., LEO F. Appellant,
Plaintiff and v.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD Corporation, a Delaware
COMPANY,
Respondent.
Defendant and
No. 90-566.
May 31,
Submitted on briefs
1991.
Aug.
Decided
Don C. Jungbauer, William G. Patrick R. Gillespie, Yaeger Yaeger, & Minneapolis, Minn., Larson, Missoula, John W. plaintiff for appellant.
Randy Cox, Boone, J. Karlberg Haddon, Missoula, & for defendant and respondent.
JUSTICE WEBER Opinion delivered the of the Court. (Mr.
Plaintiff, Marazzato, Marazzato), Leo F. Sr. is the father and (the decedent). personal representative Marazzato, of Leo F. Jr. Mr. (FELA) brought Marazzato Employers’ this Federal Liability Act in action the District District, Court for the Fourth Judicial Missoula County, seeking distress suffered the decedent by suicide, to the decedent’s death and for the pecuniary loss parents suffered after the decedent’s death. The District Court granted Burlington Summary Judgment Northern’s Motion for concluding had not that it Marazzato established was by Burlington Northern that its actions would result in foreseeable appeals. decedent’s Mr. Marazzato We affirm. Did Court dispositive correctly revised issue is: the District conclude failed to sufficient estab- knew or Burlington lish Northern should have known that unsupervised to an rubber room could have resulted in foreseeable harm to decedent?
The decedent as a clerk worked for Northern from 1976 March, until his Under bargaining suicide a collective “merger agreement, protected” employee he was means that obligated pay if wages even it had no Upon for him line work to do. sale of southern Link, Burlington to Montana Rail Northern had more clerks Missoula Beginning than needed. March (known assigned to an Alternative Work Location “rubber room” by employees) in Missoula. Employees assigned who were required rubber room report to the room for work shifts but had no work to The employees read, television, do. were free to watch cards, play and otherwise entertain themselves. There were no su- pervisors or in available in the attendance rubber room.
On March the decedent was notified he Havre, transferred to Montana. He had the of option accepting the by reporting days, transfer to in Havre taking work within 20 a six month leave of pay, resigning accepting absence without and a separation allowance. affidavits,
Evidence in of depositions, the form medical and records show that the rapidly decedent’s mental health during deteriorated the month of The March. decedent threatened commit to suicide during several times the On month. March his Mother police agreed called the the hospital and to enter the under the care of a psychiatrist. following day. He was released the That day same he another had indicating received letter that it come to the Helena, attention of Northern that his “home was in zone” Montana he being reassigned and that rubber room in to the 29,1988, gun Helena. On March bought the decedent a a second- up shop, hand drove to the South Hills area of and killed Missoula himself. argues assignment Marazzato that the decedent’s to the unsu-
pervised room caused mental his and emotional condition proximate which was the direct and result of failing provide place in the decedent with a safe to work negligence 51, et seq.]. [45 FELA U.S.C. The District Court violation of § granted summary judgment of basis foreseeability. Mr. Marazzato contends that the District Court erred sufficiently expert affidavits from witnesses established because jury harm in FELA case. of to reach Bozeman, psychologist Dr. C. licensed from Mon- Deming, James tana, Rigaud, psychiatrist Dr. licensed from and Marie-Claude Illinois, Aurora, presented analyzing affidavits the medical after experts in this depositions records and available case. Both concluded major and suffering depression depend- that the decedent was from personality Deming ent disorder to his death. Dr. also concluded that decedent’s behavior was consistent with “isolation stress” among military personnel similar the reactions stationed at found military isolated stations.
Dr. under Rigaud observed that the decedent had been the effect job of a of to severe stressors for some time before multitude moderate his to the Those stressors included rubber room. earlier deprivation imposed job change, two transfers which involved of support others, inadequate significant perception preparation of of fit training job safely effectively, poor and to do the and and between and his His to those stressors responses individual environment. fears, feelings and of loneliness and expressed depression, job The emptiness, insecurity organiza- as well as dissatisfaction. changes company tion within the added stressors such as uncer- new tainty employment his future. Confinement in the rubber room about objectives expectations without identified or well-defined to what meaningful was to achieved resulted boredom and lack be on these purpose which created additional stressors. Based observa- tions, following came Rigaud Dr. conclusions:
“(1) [Burlington conditions employment [decedent’s] major progressive traumata which led to Northern] constituted deterioration, eventually episode latest to his agitated depression. suicidal
“(2) Additionally, to bear acute stressors which came after already an further discharge hospital exacerbated *4 distress, psychological more acute precarious condition and led to confusion, impaired reality judgment. despair, testing “(3) impulse a irresistible killed himself as result of an [Decedent] above. brought by his emotional condition described about “(4) the [Burlington Northern] should have been able foresee
491 potentially impact working detrimental that such stressful condi- least, employees. company tions would have had on their At the the assigned a could have ob- supervisory personnel should have who they becoming served and monitored such effects as evident.” Mr. expert Marazzato asserts these conclusions were sufficient foreseeability in FELA establish a case. FELA, jury is go
Under the test of whether a case should to a simply justifies whether the evidence with reason the conclusion any employer negligence played part, slightest, producing even the injury sought. Rogers the or death for which are v. Missouri (1957), 500, 506, 443, 448, 1 Pac. R.R. 352 U.S. 77 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Rogers proposition liberally Marazzato cites for the that FELA is require only slight foreseeability get construed to amount of FELA a jury. Rogers say “[i]t case to The Court went on to does not that, evidence, jury may reason, matter from the also with grounds probability, causes, of including attribute the result to other employee’s contributory negligence.” Rogers, 352 77 U.S. S.Ct. at 440. It is obvious Rogers from this statement that the case addressing multiple contributory issues of causes negligence after it had employer been established that negligent. (1963), Also see Gallick v.Baltimore & Ohio R.R. 372 U.S. 108, 116, 659, 664-665, 618; Atchison, 83 S.Ct. 9 L.Ed.2d Barilla v. (D. Topeka Ry. 1986), & Santa Fe F.Supp. Ariz. proving has the burden of that defendant’s
negligence
proximate
was the
in part
cause whole or
of
Barilla,
F.Supp.
foreseeability
[death].
at 1059. Reasonable
of
Gallick,
harm is an
ingredient
negligence.
essential
of FELA
372 U.S.
“Please actual, mental or emotional outlining possible anticipated or da plaintiff’s employees such impact or the use of ‘rubber rooms’ has possession has in its Burlington decedent which access to.” all had access to
Through Interrogatory No. Mr. Marazzato have es- possession that could Burlington documents Northern’s failed to knowledge. Mr. Marazzato tablished foreseen harm to Northern should have prove decedent. plain- that the correctly Court concluded
We hold that the District sufficient to establish tiff failed an unsu- Northern knew or should have known harm to the resulted in foreseeable rubber room could have pervised decedent.
Affirmed. GRAY, HARRISON, and JUSTICES
CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE HUNT and McDONOUGH concur. TRIEWEILER, concurring: specially
JUSTICE However, opinion. by majority’s I in the result achieved concur for different reasons. I arrive at the same conclusion would District damages in the sought separate types Plaintiff two distress, emotional sought damages He for the decedent’s Court. death, to decedent’s alleged negligently he caused which death. of decedent’s damages which resulted because sought and he However, foreseeability. lack dismissed based on Both claims were appeal: raised two issues on may damages for an FELA claimant recover 1. Whether injuries inflicted, negligently which are though even there is no injury harm; physical physical or threat of 2. Whether he had offered sufficient evidence on the issue of to overcome summary defendant’s motion for judgment.
Because action brought pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, gives the conduct which rise to a cause of action and the nature of by recoverable are controlled federal statutes and case law. only case law cited either of the parties appears
clearly
recovery
negligent
allow
for
infliction of emotional distress is
Atchison,
(9th
Buell v.
Topeka
Fe Ry.
& Santa
1985),
Co.
Cir.
771 F.2d
1320,
However,
1324.
Buell
by
was reversed
the United States
Supreme
Atchison,
Court in
Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Buell
(1987),
557,
1410,
480 U.S.
107 5.Ct.
Montana
recovery
has allowed
negligent
for
infliction of emotional
distress under limited circumstances which are
not
this
case.
(1983),
Versland v. CaronTransport
313,
206 Mont.
322-
671
However,
P.2d
we have been reluctant to extend the cause
beyond
of action
those
Day
circumstances described in Versland.
v.
(1990),
Montana Power Co.
242 Mont.
While there be sound public policy arguments extending for the circumstances under which a negligent cause of action for inflic- tion of emotional may presented, distress be I do not believe that the workplace railroad place begin, is the authority absent some from the federal decisions or statutes.
I would affirm
judgment
the District
dismissing
Court’s
that part
plaintiff’s
claim which relates to the decedent’s suicide based on
following general
rule set
in Krieg
(1989),
forth
v.Masse
239 Mont.
469,
“The
by
as relied upon
Court,
the District
in the area
liability
of civil
for suicide is that ‘[n]egligence actions for the suicide
of another
generally
will
not lie since the act or suicide is considered
intervening
deliberate
exonerating
act
the defendant
legal
from
responsibility
4th,
...’41 ALR
353. Prosser and Keeton on Torts 44§
(4th
1971);
280-81
ed.
(1989),
McPeake v.
Esquire,
Cannon
P.C.
Super. 227,
439;
381 Pa.
(1983),
553 A.2d
McLaughlin v. Sullivan
adopt this rule.”
expressly
The plaintiffs
rule:
general
following exception
within
condition
act causes a mental
defendant’s tortious
[WJhere
“a.
impulse
results in an uncontrollable
proximately
in the decedent
realizing the
the decedent from
prevents
or that
to commit suicide
of his act...”
nature
471,
Krieg, 239 Mont. at in this record that evidence However, there was no substantial by condition caused of a mental took his life because by alleged tortious act act. The defendant’s tortious site to which the work supervise failure to defendant’s lack However, no evidence that that there was confined. decedent was which any way to the mental condition supervision contributed evidence, fact, including In in decedent’s resulted by the history reconstructed and the medical records decedent’s which consultants, the mental condition indicates that plaintiff’s own to him that he was by caused notice suicide was led to decedent’s from his apart he would be a new location where transferred to friends. and without parents place. It did not occur at the work
Furthermore, decedent’s suicide discharged after he had been area near Missoula in a remote occurred Had there psychiatrists. psychologists professional the care of depression while at work despondency or indications of been more could nothing supervision, closer detected could have been *7 referral to the health care than a from defendant expected have been shortly before ultimately saw and treated who professionals decedent’s suicide was Therefore, I conclude that would legal respon- exonerating defendant intervening act a deliberate death, affirm the District and on that basis sibility for decedent’s Court.