Estate of Morgan v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.: FELA Excludes Harassment-Induced Suicide Outside the Zone of Danger

Introduction

This case arises from the tragic death of Phillip Raymond Morgan, a twenty-year railroad veteran who took his own life after months of alleged workplace harassment by his supervisor. Kera Morgan, as personal representative of her husband’s estate, sued Union Pacific Railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), seeking wrongful‐death damages. The Iowa Supreme Court was asked to decide whether FELA extends to emotional injuries and suicide caused by non-physical harassment at work. In a 4–3 decision, the majority held that FELA does not cover purely emotional injuries or suicide unless the employee was subjected to a physical impact or was within the “zone of danger” of imminent physical harm. The dissent argued that death by suicide is a distinct compensable harm under FELA’s broad remedial language.

Summary of the Judgment

The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Union Pacific. Applying United States Supreme Court precedent in Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, the majority concluded that FELA adopts common‐law limitations on recovering for non‐physical injuries. Under the zone‐of‐danger test, a plaintiff may recover for emotional distress only if he or she suffered a physical impact or was in imminent threat of physical harm. Phillip Morgan’s suicide, though resulting from severe emotional distress, occurred without any contemporaneous physical impact or narrowly averted accident. Because Morgan’s injuries were purely psychological, the court held FELA did not cover his death and dismissed the claim.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court’s analysis rested heavily on leading FELA decisions:

• Urie v. Thompson (1949): Held that occupational diseases like silicosis satisfy FELA’s broad “injury” requirement.
• Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall (1994): Recognized mental injuries as “injuries” under FELA but limited recovery by adopting the common‐law “zone of danger” test for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court emphasized that FELA is not a workers’ compensation statute and that unlimited liability for emotional harms must be avoided.
• Metro-North Commuter R.R. v. Buckley (1997): Applied Gottshall’s rationale to reject recovery for fear of future disease absent physical manifestations or impact.
• Federal cases such as Crown v. Union Pacific (8th Cir. 1998) and similar post-Gottshall rulings that deny FELA recovery for “work‐stress” injuries when no physical impact or threat exists.

Legal Reasoning

1. Statutory Language and Common Law
FELA’s text makes rail carriers “liable in damages” for any “injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the negligence” of the carrier’s officers or agents (45 U.S.C. § 51). The court noted that while the statute’s remedial purpose is broad, the Supreme Court has “borrowed” common‐law principles to define the contours of a railroad’s duty.

2. Zone of Danger Test
From Gottshall, the court drew that a FELA plaintiff claiming purely emotional injuries must show either a physical impact or that the emotional harm arose from negligence threatening immediate physical harm—the “zone of danger.” Without such a showing, emotional distress is not compensable.

3. Application to Suicide
The majority treated Morgan’s suicide as the ultimate physical manifestation of prolonged emotional distress. Because no specific incident of physical impact or near‐impact at work precipitated his suicide, his estate’s FELA claim fell outside the zone of danger; summary judgment was proper.

4. Dissenting View
The dissent argued that the wrongful‐death claim is distinct from a negligent‐infliction‐of‐emotional‐distress claim. Congress’ grant of damages “for … death … resulting in whole or in part from the negligence” should encompass suicide when a supervisor’s misconduct foreseeably leads to self‐inflicted death. The dissent would allow a jury to weigh causation and foreseeability rather than impose a rigid zone‐of‐danger barrier.

Impact

This decision reaffirms a narrow scope of FELA liability for non‐physical harms in Iowa and potentially influences other jurisdictions to follow suit. Plaintiffs seeking FELA damages for suicide or severe emotional distress due to workplace harassment must demonstrate a clear physical component or imminent threat of bodily injury. Practitioners should be prepared to:

• Identify and document any physical impact, near miss, or safety‐critical incident to trigger FELA coverage for psychological injuries.
• Explore alternative wrongful‐death or tort causes of action in state court where FELA’s limitations may not apply.
• Monitor legislative efforts to amend FELA or state statutory regimes to cover pure emotional or suicide‐related claims.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA): A federal statute giving railroad workers (or their estates) the right to sue for injuries or death caused by carrier negligence.

Zone of Danger Test: A legal rule requiring a plaintiff to prove they were in imminent risk of physical harm or experienced a physical impact before recovering for emotional distress.

negligent infliction of emotional distress: A common‐law tort claim for recovery of purely mental or emotional injury caused by another’s negligence, subject to limitations such as the zone of danger.

Summary Judgment: A procedural tool for disposing of cases without trial when no genuine factual dispute exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Wrongful-Death Action: A lawsuit brought by a decedent’s representative to recover damages for the decedent’s death, including both pecuniary losses to survivors and, where applicable, pain and suffering suffered before death.

Conclusion

In Estate of Morgan v. Union Pacific, the Iowa Supreme Court reaffirmed that FELA’s broad remedial goals are tempered by common‐law limitations on non-physical injuries. The “zone of danger” remains the gateway for emotional distress claims, and suicide caused by prolonged harassment—absent any immediate physical threat—lies beyond FELA’s scope. The decision underscores the continued tension between FELA’s generous causation standard and traditional tort boundaries. Going forward, employees and estates will need to show some physical element or fight for legislative reform if they hope to recover under FELA for pure psychological or suicide‐related harms.