Tierney v. Burlington Northern Railroad

Citations: 240 Ill. App. 3d 526; 181 Ill. Dec. 406; 1992 Ill. App. LEXIS 2152; 608 N.E.2d 479Docket: No. 1-90-1296

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; December 30, 1992; Illinois; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Dennis Tierney filed a personal injury lawsuit against Burlington Northern Railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging negligence after sustaining injuries while working on the railroad's property. The case was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where a motion for summary judgment by the defendant was denied. Following a voluntary dismissal, the case was refiled in the Circuit Court of Cook County, where Judge Dean J. Sodaro granted summary judgment in favor of Burlington Northern, ruling that Tierney was not an “employee” of the railroad at the time of his accident, thus barring his FELA claim.

The pivotal issue on appeal is whether Tierney qualifies as a railroad employee under FELA. At the time of the accident, Tierney was employed by BN Transport, Inc., a subsidiary of Burlington Northern, and had worked there since 1977 in various roles, including trailer handling and freight delivery. He spent a significant portion of his time working within the railroad yard and reported to Burlington Northern employees for supervision. Tierney believed he was employed by Burlington Northern throughout his tenure, as he frequently interacted with railroad personnel and received directives from them, even though he was officially employed by BN Transport. He was injured in 1982 at a facility housing trailers from both companies, where he interacted with employees from both BN Transport and Burlington Northern. The court's decision hinges on the determination of Tierney’s employment status at the time of his injury.

Plaintiff Tierney occasionally transported trailers from the railroad to the 36th Street yard and handled freight, including railroad car equipment, but did not work directly on trains. On the day of his accident, he reported to work at a facility marked with the "Burlington Northern" insignia, where he received instructions from the dock foreman regarding trailer operations. During the accident, as Tierney ascended a ladder to the dock, it detached, causing him to fall and sustain injuries that rendered him unable to work as a truck driver. He was in the process of hooking a tractor to a Burlington Northern trailer containing railroad parts, which were typically sourced from a Burlington yard. 

Tierney could not identify who secured the ladder to the dock or their affiliation with Burlington Northern. He argued that a prior federal court's denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be regarded as the "law of the case" in the subsequent state court proceedings. Both parties agreed that all discovery from the federal case would apply to the state action. While it is established that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice nullifies previous proceedings, the parties' stipulation did not indicate that earlier judgments or orders were preserved. Consequently, the denial of summary judgment in the federal case did not bind the circuit court in the refiled action. The main issue now is whether Tierney qualifies as an "employee" under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), which holds railroads liable for injuries to individuals "while he is employed" by the railroad, with four potential bases for establishing employer liability: actual employment, borrowed servant status, simultaneous employment by two employers, or being a subservant of the railroad through an employer who is a railroad servant.

The trial court dismissed possibilities (1) and (2) and focused on whether a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding scenarios (3) or (4) in the context of the defendant's summary judgment motion. The court referenced Kelley v. Southern Pacific Co., where it was determined that the plaintiff, employed by a subsidiary of the defendant railroad, was not considered a railroad employee under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act due to a lack of significant supervision by railroad personnel during the injury. 

In the present case, the plaintiff, Tierney, had varying degrees of supervision by railroad employees while working for BN Transport. The key issue was whether Tierney was simultaneously serving both BN Transport and Burlington Northern Railroad at the time of his injury. Evidence indicated that Burlington Northern held a leasehold interest in the accident site, and while some BN Transport employees had resigned, others were present during the incident. The ramp manager for Burlington Northern Railroad testified that he supervised BN Transport employees but was not aware of any railroad employees present at the specific location of the accident.

Despite the intertwined operations of the two companies, Tierney did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact concerning dual employment at the time of his injury. The trial court concluded that Tierney failed to demonstrate concurrent service to both entities. Additionally, while Burlington Northern owned all stock of BN Transport and directed its operations per a 1974 agreement, mere stock ownership was deemed insufficient to classify BN Transport as a servant of Burlington Northern Railroad.

Plaintiff provided evidence indicating that Burlington Northern Railroad's in-house counsel managed his workers’ compensation claims, asserting that BN Transport and Burlington Northern Railroad are effectively the same entity. Jack Lambrecht, the general claims manager for Burlington Northern Railroad, stated that his department handled subrogation claims for BN Transport to recover funds from the Workers’ Compensation Act. The railroad managed all workers’ compensation claims for BN Transport in the Chicago area, regardless of whether they arose on railroad property. There was conflicting evidence regarding whether BN Transport functioned merely as a servant of Burlington Northern Railroad, creating a genuine issue of material fact for the jury to determine. The jury should assess if BN Transport acted as a servant of Burlington Northern Railroad, thereby establishing the plaintiff's status as a subservant and employee under FELA. Although evidence of the railroad's control over the plaintiff’s work activities at various locations could not establish dual servitude, it could support a master-servant relationship between BN Transport and Burlington Northern Railroad. The court found that the Honorable Dean J. Sodaro improperly granted summary judgment for Burlington Northern Railroad, leading to a reversal and remand for further proceedings.