Lupia v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc.

Background

Scott Lupia was employed as a locomotive engineer in NJT’s Hoboken Division. On July 21, 2021, he found that the air-conditioning unit in the cab of his assigned locomotive was not working. A senior train master measured the cab temperature at 114 degrees Fahrenheit. Mechanical personnel could not repair the unit, which railroad records showed had first been reported as inoperable six weeks earlier.

The senior train master informed Chief Train Master Malik Little that the air conditioning was broken and that the cab temperature was 114 degrees. Little nevertheless ordered Lupia to operate the train. Little knew of earlier incidents in which NJT engineers needed medical assistance after operating trains with cab temperatures above 100 degrees. Little also believed that an engineer who refused to operate without air conditioning could be charged with insubordination and fired.

About 40 minutes after leaving Penn Station, Lupia collapsed from heat exhaustion. He was found unresponsive on the cab floor. Video showed him falling from his chair and striking his head and neck on hard metal surfaces. The opinion states that he suffered head and neck injuries requiring extensive medical treatment and resulting in permanent, career-ending disabilities.

Claims and arguments

Lupia asserted two causes of action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), a federal law allowing railroad employees to seek damages for injuries caused by their employer’s negligence. His first claim alleged that NJT failed to use reasonable care to provide a safe workplace, including by failing to inspect, maintain, or repair the air-conditioning unit; failing to determine that the locomotive was unsafe; failing to provide another locomotive; and failing to cancel the train.

His second claim alleged that NJT violated FELA by violating the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), which requires a railroad locomotive and its parts and attachments to be in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury. The LIA imposes an absolute duty on railroads to maintain covered locomotive equipment, and a violation can establish negligence under FELA without separate proof of ordinary negligence.

NJT moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. NJT argued that an air-conditioning unit was not a LIA “part” or “appurtenance,” that the federal regulation cited by Lupia did not apply to the locomotive, and that the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) and its regulations precluded Lupia’s FELA claims.

Air-conditioning regulation

The court granted summary judgment to NJT on the portion of Lupia’s claim relying on 49 C.F.R. § 229.119(h). That regulation requires certain locomotive air-conditioning units to be inspected and maintained so they operate properly and meet specified minimum standards. The regulation applies only to locomotives first placed in service on or after June 8, 2012. The parties did not dispute that Train 6659 was commissioned around 2001, so the regulation did not apply. The court therefore ruled that a violation of that regulation could not establish negligence under FELA in this case.

Locomotive Inspection Act claim

The court denied summary judgment on Lupia’s LIA theory. The central question was whether the installed air-conditioning unit could qualify as part of an essential and integral temperature-control system of the completed locomotive, even though federal regulations did not require NJT to install an air-conditioning unit in the first place.

The court relied on Supreme Court precedent treating an integral or essential part of a completed locomotive as covered by the LIA. It also considered decisions distinguishing between a railroad’s failure to install optional equipment and its failure to maintain equipment it chose to install. The court concluded that the evidence could support a finding that a functioning temperature-control system was essential to safe locomotive operation. The Federal Railroad Administration had recognized that extreme temperatures reduce crew performance and had identified engineering controls for limiting cab temperatures.

The court held that NJT’s choice to rely on an air-conditioning system could make that system a covered component of the locomotive. The evidence that the cab reached 114 degrees, that the unit had been inoperable for six weeks, and that a senior NJT official knew of prior heat-related medical incidents was sufficient to allow a jury to consider whether the system was unsafe and whether its condition contributed to Lupia’s injury. The court therefore denied NJT’s motion for summary judgment on the LIA claim.

Federal Railroad Safety Act argument

The court also denied NJT’s motion for summary judgment based on preclusion by the FRSA and its regulations. The court held that Congress had not clearly stated that FRSA regulations barred FELA claims. It reasoned that the two laws could operate together: FRSA regulations could provide evidence of negligence or due care without eliminating FELA’s separate protections for railroad employees.

The court distinguished a claim that a railroad failed to install equipment that federal law did not require from Lupia’s claims that NJT failed to inspect, maintain, or repair an air-conditioning unit after installing it and failed to determine whether the locomotive was safe to operate with the unit inoperable. NJT’s possible lack of a duty to install air conditioning did not, on the court’s reasoning, excuse it from addressing defects in equipment it had installed.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that NJT’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. The court granted summary judgment concerning the inapplicable air-conditioning regulation, denied summary judgment on the LIA claim, and denied summary judgment based on FRSA preclusion. The clerk was directed to close the motion docket entry.