Every common carrier by railroad while engaging in commerce between any of the several States or Territories, or between any of the States and Territories, or between the District of Columbia and any of the States or Territories, or between the District of Columbia or any of the States or Territories and any foreign nation or nations, shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce, or, in case of the death of such employee, to his or her personal representative, for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee; and, if none, then of such employee’s parents; and, if none, then of the next of kin dependent upon such employee, for such injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency, due to its negligence, in its cars, engines, appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, works, boats, wharves, or other equipment.
Any employee of a carrier, any part of whose duties as such employee shall be the furtherance of interstate or foreign commerce; or shall, in any way directly or closely and substantially, affect such commerce as above set forth shall, for the purposes of this chapter, be considered as being employed by such carrier in such commerce and shall be considered as entitled to the benefits of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994).
· cites it 16× “" 45 U. S. C. § 51 . Our task today is determining under what circumstances emotional distress may constitute "injury" resulting from "negligence" for purposes of the statute.”
Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Ayers, 538 U.S. 135 (2003).
· cites it 8× “II Section 1 of the FELA renders common carrier railroads "liable in damages to any person suffering injury while .”
Welch v. Texas Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468 (1987).
· cites it 6× “65 , 45 U. S. C. § 51 . The Court mistakenly relied on cases holding that general language in the Safety Appliance Act, §§ 2, 6, and the Railway Labor Act, § 151 et seq.”
Anderson v. BNSF Ry., 2015 MT 240 (Mont. 2015).
· cites it 14× “In 2008, he sued BNSF under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51 , et seq. (FELA). Anderson alleged that over the course of his employment, BNSF negligently assigned him to work that caused cumulative trauma injuries to his musculoskeletal system, particularly…”
Atl. Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009).
· cites it 5× “§30104 (a) (incorporating the Federal Employ ers’ Liability Act, 45 U. S. C. §§51–60). The Jones Act thus created a statutory cause of action for negligence, but it did not eliminate pre-existing reme dies available to seamen for the separate common-law cause of action based on…”
Bernadean Rittmann v. amazon.com, Inc., 971 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 4× “45 U.S.C. § 51 (emphasis added). Prior to the FAA’s enactment in 1925, the Supreme Court articulated that “the true test of such employment in [such] commerce in the sense intended is, [w]as the employee, at the time of the injury, engaged in interstate transportation, or in…”
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017).
· cites it 2× “Both suits were pursued in Montana state courts although the injured workers did not reside in Montana, nor were they injured there.”
Huffman v. Union Pac. R.R., 675 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 8× “45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. Huffman filed the suit on February 21, 2007.”
Monessen Sw. Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 486 U.S. 330 (1988).
· cites it 6× “65 , as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq. I Appellee was employed by appellant as a railroad brakeman and conductor.”
Union Pac. R.R. v. Williams, 85 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. 2002).
· cites it 4× “See 45 U.S.C. § 51 . The issue is whether the trial court erred in refusing to submit Union Pacific’s proposed foreseeability instruction in the jury charge.”
Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005).
· cites it 2× “His widow sued under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq., to recover for his wrongful death.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.