## Facts

- Ernest M. Grube, a locomotive engineer employed by Union Pacific Railroad Company, operated a train near Lawrence, Kansas.
- The train collided with an automobile that was trapped on a railroad crossing.
- Immediately before impact, Grube saw the driver’s face and perceived fear of the approaching train.
- The collision killed one occupant and seriously injured two others.
- After the collision, Grube left the locomotive, went to the automobile, and assisted the occupants; he touched the deceased while attempting to find a pulse.
- Grube had an immediate physical reaction (vomiting) and later alleged continuing emotional injury with physical manifestations.
- Grube sued Union Pacific under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- A jury returned a verdict for Grube, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether FELA permits recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress and, if so, what limiting standard governs the claim.
2. Whether, under the governing standard, Grube was within the “zone of danger” such that the jury’s verdict could stand without a new trial.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court held that the controlling standard for FELA negligent infliction of emotional distress claims is the U.S. Supreme Court’s “zone of danger” test.
- The court concluded that Grube was within the zone of danger during the collision.
- The court affirmed the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict for Grube and declined to remand for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Under FELA, a plaintiff may recover for negligently inflicted emotional injury only if the plaintiff sustained a physical impact or was placed in immediate risk of physical harm by the defendant’s negligence (the “zone of danger” test).
- When the material facts relevant to the zone-of-danger inquiry are undisputed, an appellate court may apply the governing standard to the existing record without ordering a retrial.
- Emotional distress accompanied by physical manifestations may be compensable under FELA when the plaintiff satisfies the zone-of-danger threshold.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court applied FELA’s zone-of-danger limitation to an engineer’s emotional distress claim arising from a train–automobile collision, held the engineer faced immediate risk of physical harm during the impact, and affirmed the jury verdict awarding damages for the resulting emotional injury and related physical symptoms.


Grube v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 256 Kan. 519, 886 P.2d 845 (Kan. 1994)