Case Name: Glenn T. Holsapple v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Date Decided: December 11, 2009
Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska
Judge: Judge McCormack
Citation: 2009 WL 4723306 (Neb.)

Background:
Glenn T. Holsapple brought this action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, FELA, for a knee injury he allegedly sustained in the course of employment.

The injury occurred while Holsapple walked from a parking lot, owned by Union Pacific Railroad Company, to the UP yard office where he reported for work.

When Holsapple is called by UP he comes into work and must report to the yard office to receive his paperwork and assignment. His shift officially starts once he has reported to the yard office and received his assignment.

On the day he was injured, Holsapple was parked in an area referred to as the “east lot”. This area is owned by UP and has an alleyway running east to west serving as the entrance and the exit. The yard office, where he is required to report, is located on the west end of the alleyway.

Employees must walk through the alleyway in order to report to the office. The alleyway is owned by the city. However, UP has marked the alleyway as private property.

Holsapple brought suit under FELA alleging he was injured while performing a duty necessarily incident to his employment. Moreover, Holsapple contended that UP was negligent in maintaining the alleyway and his injury was caused by this negligence, in violation of FELA.

The district court granted UP’s motion for summary judgment holding that Holsapple was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of his injury reasoning that it occurred before he was to report for duty and before he picked up his paperwork. The court further found that his injury occurred on city property, the alleyway, and not railroad property.

Holsapple appealed this finding.

Issue:
Was Holsapple acting in the course and scope of his employment while walking from a company owned parking lot, through public property ,on the way to work?

Held:
This was a case of first impression for the Nebraksa Supreme Court.

Ultimately, the Court found that Holsapple was exposed to dangers and risks not shared by the general public in walking from his car to report for duty. The alleyway was not open to the general public and UP strategically placed signs restricting the use of the alleyway to UP employees. Moreover, UP was fully aware that its employees routinely traversed the alleyway to and from the east lot.

UP was fully aware its employees routinely traversed the alleyway as evidenced by the signs and by doing so, UP had effectively encouraged its employees to use the alleyway. This Court found there is a distinct casual connection between UP’s encouraging its employees to traverse the alleyway and Holsapple’s injury.

This Court, relying on precedent, stated where the employer knows and implicitly encourages its employees to traverse another’s property nearby to get to and from the jobsite, that employer cannot avoid liability under FELA simply because it does not own the property.

Ultimately this Court reversed the granting of summary judgment and remanded this action for further proceedings.

Comment:
The Nebraska Supreme Court distinguished between commuter cases and traversing cases.

In commuter cases, courts generally conclude that the FELA does not provide coverage. This is because, (1) The employee is injured a significant distance from his or her jobsite and while commuting to or from the jobsite and (2) the employee is not in any greater danger or exposed to greater risks than any other member of the commuting public. Courts under these cases have held that FELA is not designed to protect workers from the risks of commuting to which all employees of any employer are exposed. 

Even in cases where an employee stepped off an employer’s train has the court found no FELA liability because the trains were open to the general public as a mode of transportation.

However, in Eerie R.R. Co. v. Winfield, the US Supreme Court applied the traversing rule (where an employee was struck and killed by a switch engine shortly after he had put his engine away for the night and was crossing the railroad’s yard).

In traversing cases, the courts will find FELA liability when the employee is injured while engaged in a “necessary incident of his day’s work, thus discharging a duty of his employment.  Therefore, because the injured person(s) are exposed to dangers associated with working for a railroad, FELA will apply.

Steve Gordon