UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Iowa Supreme Court: Union Pacific Railroad not liable for worker’s suicide

by Rox Laird | April 30, 2025

The Union Pacific Railroad Co. is not liable under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for the death of an employee who took his own life from emotional distress caused by his supervisor’ harassment, the Iowa Supreme Court held in a decision handed down April 25.

Kera Morgan, as administrator of her late husband Phillip’s estate, sued the railroad in Polk County District Court for wrongful death under FELA, which makes railroads liable for damages for injury or death due to their negligence. The district court dismissed the case on summary judgment.

The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the trial court in a decision written by Justice Edward Mansfield joined by Justices Thomas Waterman, Matthew McDermott and David May. Justice Dana Oxley wrote a separate opinion dissenting from the majority, which was joined by Justice Christopher McDonald. Chief Justice Susan Christensen did not participate in the case.

The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) states in part that railroads “shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier . . . 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 . . . 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.”

A psychiatric expert retained by Kera Morgan stated that Phillip’s suicide “was a direct result of the stress and harassment he underwent for months at work culminating with his self-inflicted gunshot wound . . . .“

The Iowa Supreme Court, however, said this case was governed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1994 decision in Consolidated Rail v. Gottshall, which said that while FELA expanded the ability of railroad workers to be compensated for work-related injuries, the statute incorporates common law limits on compensation. In Gottshall, and in subsequent cases, the U.S. Supreme Court limited recovery for railroad employees to physical and emotional injuries where there is physical impact or “negligent conduct of their employers that threatens them imminently with physical impact.”

Thus, under Gottshall, railroads are exposed to liability for an employees’ injury that occurs within a “zone of danger,” Justice Mansfield wrote, explaining the high court’s rationale. ”Expressing a concern that even genuine claims for emotional distress could expose railroads to ‘unpredictable and nearly infinite liability,’ the [U.S Supreme] Court held that the ‘zone of danger’ test delineated the proper scope of the railroad’s duty.’’

Under that test, a worker within the zone of danger of physical impact may recover damages for emotional injury caused by fear of physical injury, Justice Mansfield wrote. “Phillip’s emotional injuries, however, resulted from an accumulation of stress at work, due in large part to his supervisor’s mistreatment. There was no physical impact or harm at the workplace, nor was Phillip within the zone of danger of an actual or potential physical impact or harm.” Instead, he wrote, there were emotional and psychological harms that then led to Phillip’s suicide.

And while Kera Morgan sought damages for Phillip’s death, not for the emotional distress he suffered that led to his death, her claim nevertheless failed because, as the Court reasoned, Phillip’s death was not caused by an actual or threatened physical harm that occurred at the workplace.

In her dissent, Justice Oxley wrote that Kera Morgan should have been able to present her case to a jury.

Justice Oxley disagreed with the majority’s focus on Gottshall and the zone of danger, which Justice Oxley said is irrelevant to Kara Morgan’s claim because she sought damages for Phillip’s death, not for emotional distress.

And she said other courts are taking a new view on the question of liability for suicide in FELA claims. “I believe federal courts would consider Kera’s request that we look to modern cases addressing liability for the suicide of another in determining whether her FELA claim survives summary judgment,” Justice Oxley wrote. “Under this modern view, the concern with imposing liability for negligence that leads to another’s suicide turns on foreseeability.”

The psychiatric expert’s opinion that Phillip Morgan’s suicide was due to work-related stress and harassment provided sufficient foreseeability to present the issue to a jury, she wrote.

“The evidence might not convince a jury that Phillip’s death ‘result[ed] in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees’ of Union Pacific,” Justice Oxley wrote. “But the majority’s opinion that short-circuits the broad framework for FELA liability put in place by Congress ensures the jury will never get the chance.”

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25