## Facts

- Two former Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) employees brought separate negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) actions under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51–60; the cases were consolidated.
- James Gottshall worked on a Conrail track maintenance gang in extreme heat and under heavy exertion when a coworker collapsed and later died; supervisors allegedly delayed medical assistance, required the crew to keep working, and left the body at the work site for the rest of the day.
- Gottshall alleged that Conrail’s negligence and unsafe working conditions caused severe emotional distress and resulting psychiatric harm.
- Alan Carlisle alleged Conrail imposed a punishing, unpredictable work schedule with long hours and constant on-call duties, leading to stress-related mental breakdowns and associated physical symptoms.
- In Gottshall’s case, the district court granted summary judgment for Conrail, but the Third Circuit reversed, applying a threshold “genuineness” approach tied to foreseeability.
- In Carlisle’s case, a jury found for Carlisle; the Third Circuit affirmed, emphasizing foreseeability and characterizing the case as recognizing FELA NIED liability based on work-related stress.

## Issues

1. Whether NIED claims are cognizable as “injury” actions under FELA.
2. If cognizable, what limiting standard governs FELA NIED claims.
3. Whether Gottshall’s and Carlisle’s allegations satisfy the proper standard.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that NIED claims are cognizable under FELA, but FELA does not authorize open-ended emotional-distress liability akin to workers’ compensation.
- The Court adopted the common-law “zone of danger” test for FELA NIED claims.
- The Court reversed the Third Circuit’s judgments and remanded.
- Gottshall’s claim was remanded for reconsideration under the zone-of-danger test.
- Carlisle’s claim failed as a matter of law because it alleged chronic work stress without physical impact or immediate risk of physical harm.

## Legal Principles

- FELA allows recovery for emotional injury caused by employer negligence, but the scope of liability is constrained by common-law tort limits.
- The governing standard for FELA NIED is the zone-of-danger test: recovery is limited to plaintiffs who (a) sustain a physical impact from the defendant’s negligence, or (b) are placed in immediate risk of physical harm by that negligence.
- Foreseeability and “genuineness” screening alone are insufficient to define the class of compensable FELA NIED claims because they can extend liability to ordinary workplace stress.
- FELA’s duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace includes avoiding negligently inflicted emotional injury only to the extent the injury arises from apprehension of physical impact within the zone of danger.
- Claims framed as excessive workload or stressful working conditions, without immediate physical peril, fall outside FELA NIED liability under the zone-of-danger rule.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized NIED as a cognizable FELA injury but limited recovery to plaintiffs who suffer physical impact or face an immediate risk of physical harm; it remanded Gottshall for application of that test and rejected Carlisle’s work-stress claim as outside the zone of danger.


Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994)