Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Buell (480 U.S. 557)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 24, 1987 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 480 U.S. 557 · 107 S. Ct. 1410
- Decided
- March 24, 1987
- Term
- October Term 1986
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Stevens
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. A railroad has a duty to use reasonable care in furnishing its employees with a safe place to work. That duty was recognized at common law, see Bailey v. Central Vermont R. Co., 319 U. S. 350, 352-353 (1943), is given force through the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq., and is confirmed in some, if not all, collective-bargaining agreements. Breaches of the duty may at times give rise to typical labor disputes for which the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U. S. C. §151 et seq., sets forth binding arbitration procedures. Breaches may also result in injuries to a railroad’s employees — injuries for which the FELA would appear to give employees a cause of action for damages. The question in this case is whether the possibility of pursuing a labor grievance under the RLA deprives an employee of his right to bring an FELA action. I Respondent, a carman employed by petitioner, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (Railroad), filed an FELA complaint in Federal District Court, alleging that he had suffered severe personal injuries as a result of the Railroad’s failure “to provide [him] with a safe place to work, including, but not limited to, having fellow employees harass, threaten, intimidate [him], and in particular, foreman Ed Wright threatened, harassed, and…
Excerpt of a 28,036-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.