## Facts

- Charles Szabo worked for the Pennsylvania Railroad as a laborer on a track-maintenance crew.
- While performing his assigned work, Szabo was overcome by heat, became prostrated, and was unable to care for himself.
- The complaint, brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), asserted two theories submitted to the jury:
  - The railroad had a duty to provide immediate attention/first aid and, if required by the emergency, medical care, and it failed to do so, resulting in Szabo’s death.
  - The railroad undertook to care for Szabo but performed that undertaking without reasonable prudence and due care.
- A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, accepting the railroad’s position that it owed no legal duty to provide medical care and that any aid-related actions by the foreman or crew were outside their authority.
- The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals reviewed the case.

## Issues

1. Whether, absent contract or statute, an employer owes a legal duty to take reasonable steps to obtain emergency medical care or assistance for an employee who becomes suddenly stricken and helpless while engaged in the employer’s work, even if the employer did not cause the initial condition.
2. Whether a railroad’s failure to exercise reasonable care in providing or procuring such emergency assistance can constitute negligence supporting recovery under FELA for death resulting from the lack of aid.

## Decision

- The court reversed the New Jersey Supreme Court and reinstated the plaintiff’s verdict.
- The court held that the general rule of no employer duty to furnish medical care has an emergency exception.
- When an employee is stricken during the employer’s work and rendered helpless, the employer has a legal duty to put within the employee’s reach such medical care and assistance as the emergency reasonably requires.
- The duty is limited to the emergency: it arises with the urgent need and ends when the emergency ends.
- Supervisory personnel directing the work may act as the employer’s representative in discharging this duty; the employer cannot avoid responsibility by asserting lack of authority for reasonable emergency aid efforts.

## Legal Principles

- In the absence of contract or statute, an employer generally has no duty to provide medical treatment or “means of cure” to an employee.
- Exception: where an employee, while engaged in the employer’s work, becomes injured or suddenly stricken and is helpless to obtain care, the employer must use reasonable care to make emergency aid and medical assistance available as the situation reasonably requires.
- The emergency-duty obligation is implied as an incident of the employment relationship and is confined to urgent necessity; it is not an open-ended obligation to provide continuing medical services.
- Under FELA, breach of this emergency-duty standard of reasonable care may support liability if the failure to provide or procure aid contributes to injury or death.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a limited emergency-duty exception to the no-duty-to-treat rule: when a worker becomes helpless during the employer’s work, the employer must exercise reasonable care to secure necessary emergency assistance, and a failure to do so can constitute actionable negligence under FELA.


Szabo v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 132 N.J.L. 331, 40 A.2d 562 (Ct. Err. & App. 1945)