New Jersey train operator prevails on workplace injury claim

The Federal Employers' Liability Act protects federal employees from certain work-related injuries arising from the employer's failure to maintain a safe working environment. This case asks whether a railroad company's faulty air conditioning that results in the employee's injuries can give rise to a case.

The case is Lupia v. New Jersey Transit Operators, issued on August 1. Plaintiff was a locomotive engineer whose train did not have a functioning air conditioning unit for his workspace, causing the cab to reach 114 degrees, which is hotter than hell. Plaintiff was ordered to operate the train anyway, and he eventually collapsed from heat exhaustion, suffering head and neck injuries, ending his career. Does he have a case? Yes, though the issue is not as simple as you might think.

The legal standard is that a railroad carrier can only operate the train when its "parts and appurtenances" in in proper condition. What is a part and appurtenance? That's a legal term of art adopted by Congress in passing the FELA. The Court of Appeals finds that a temperature control system is an integral or essential part of a locomotive, which cannot operate safely if its engineer is incapacitated from exposure to extreme heat. If the carrier bases its temperature control system on an air conditioning unit, then it must maintain that system in proper condition without unnecessary danger of personal injury. 

The jury in this case ruled for plaintiff, awarding him $11 million. The Court of Appeals (Calabresi, Lohier and Cabranes) therefore affirms, holding the New Jersey Transit was obligated to properly maintain the air conditioning unit once it determined to base its temperature control on that unit. 

Side issue: the railroad's lawyer objected when plaintiff's counsel asked the jury for a particular damages amount. In a footnote, the Court of Appeals notes that this issue is within the trial court's discretion. The Court of Appeals is not going to second-guess the trial court's judgment on this issue, and that objection is therefore no basis for a new trial.