The Services-and-Infrastructure Test: Third Circuit Clarifies FELA’s Reach and Excludes Urban Rapid Transit from “Railroad” Status

The Services-and-Infrastructure Test: Third Circuit Clarifies FELA’s Reach and Excludes Urban Rapid Transit from “Railroad” Status

Introduction

This precedential decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Estate of John Schroeder, by and through Dawn Tucker v. Port Authority Transit Corp. and Delaware River Port Authority addresses a recurring threshold question under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq.: when is a rail-based entity a “common carrier by railroad” and when is it an urban rapid transit system outside FELA’s coverage?

John Schroeder, a 76-year-old electronics technician employed by the Port Authority Transit Corporation (PATCO), was killed in a workplace accident at the Lindenwold Yard in July 2020. His estate sued PATCO and its parent, the Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA), under FELA and also asserted state-law tort claims. The District Court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding PATCO’s “Speed Line” is an urban rapid transit system, not a FELA “railroad.” The Third Circuit affirmed, announcing a clear two-touchstone framework—focusing on the services a system provides and the infrastructure and operational integration it uses—to distinguish industrial railroads covered by FELA from urban rapid transit systems that are not.

The opinion has significant implications for transit workers and public authorities within the Third Circuit and beyond, clarifying which rail-based systems fall inside or outside the federal liability regime enacted for interstate railroads.

Summary of the Judgment

  • The court holds that PATCO’s Speed Line is not a “common carrier by railroad” within the meaning of FELA and therefore FELA does not apply.
  • It adopts and applies a two-touchstone framework to distinguish railroads from urban rapid transit:
    • Services: long-haul passenger and interstate freight transportation versus high-capacity, frequent, short-haul passenger transit serving a single metropolitan community.
    • Operations and Infrastructure: integration with, and connectivity to, the general railroad system (including freight and intercity passenger operations) versus localized, standalone systems with incompatible power, clearance, and track standards.
  • Applying these touchstones, the Speed Line’s characteristics—third-rail electrification, 14.5-mile short-haul operation, high-frequency urban service, no freight carriage, and no meaningful operational integration with other railroads (SEPTA/NJT)—place it outside FELA.
  • The court rejects the estate’s effort to define “urban rapid transit” narrowly as only streetcars/buses on public streets and also rejects reliance on a one-time maintenance use of a spur connection as a basis for FELA coverage.
  • The court affirms the District Court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on a factual Rule 12(b)(1) record.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co. v. ICC, 230 U.S. 324 (1913)
    • Seminal distinction: “ordinary railroads” are channels of interstate commerce hauling passengers or freight across connecting lines “from town to town,” while “street railways” aid local street traffic within a single community—even if that community straddles state lines.
    • Influence: The Third Circuit draws directly from Omaha’s twin focus on (1) the nature of the service (interstate freight/long-haul passengers versus local urban passenger carriage) and (2) the pattern of infrastructure and interconnections (own right-of-way with interline connections versus local trackage laid into city streets).
  • Mangum v. Capital Traction Co., 39 F.2d 286 (D.C. Cir. 1930)
    • Reinforces the service-based distinction: street railways are local and serve local travel, whereas “commercial” (i.e., FELA-covered) railways draw business from a broader territory via connecting lines.
    • Influence: Supports treating lines that extend into adjacent neighborhoods as extensions of city systems rather than interstate railroads.
  • Ferguson v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 113 F. Supp. 275 (E.D. Pa. 1952), aff’d, 205 F.2d 520 (3d Cir. 1953)
    • Held that the Bridge Line (a predecessor to PATCO’s Speed Line connecting Philadelphia and Camden) was a “street railway,” not a FELA railroad: it carried neither freight nor mail and was practically an extension of the city streetcar system.
    • Influence: Provides localized, fact-specific support for classifying Delaware River corridor urban rail as rapid transit rather than a FELA railroad.
  • Felton v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), 757 F. Supp. 623 (E.D. Pa. 1991), aff’d, 952 F.2d 59 (3d Cir. 1991)
    • Recognizes consistent congressional intent to distinguish urban rapid transit from interstate railroads, and explains that SEPTA’s Regional Rail fell under FELA because Congress, via NERSA and amendments to the RPSA, effectively carried forward Conrail’s FELA obligations for those commuter lines.
    • Influence: Demonstrates that some commuter rail remains within FELA (especially ex-Conrail commuter lines integrated into the general railroad system), underscoring that not all urban passenger rail is excluded.
  • Washington Railway & Electric Co. v. Scala, 244 U.S. 630 (1917)
    • Found FELA coverage for a company incorporated as a railway with eminent domain powers crossing into Maryland.
    • Influence: The Third Circuit treats Scala as fact-bound and difficult to reconcile with later, more detailed treatments; it declines to read Scala as expanding FELA to urban rapid transit systems that lack freight or meaningful integration.
  • Chicago Transit Authority v. Flohr, 570 F.2d 1305 (7th Cir. 1977) and Linetskiy v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 2 A.D.3d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
    • Confirm freight carriage and industrial hazards as touchstones for federal railroad legislation; Linetskiy characterizes LIRR as a railroad due to involvement in freight transport.
    • Influence: Bolster the freight/industrial hazard orientation of FELA and related statutes.
  • Statutory cross-references (in pari materia)
    • Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA), 45 U.S.C. § 351(a): Exempts street, interurban, or suburban electric railways.
    • Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA)/general definitions, 49 U.S.C. § 20102(2): Excludes “rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected to the general railroad system of transportation.”
    • Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C. § 231(a)(2)(ii): Similar exclusion unless operating as part of the general system.
    • Influence: These parallel definitions show Congress’s structural intent to treat urban rapid transit differently from industrial railroads, guiding the Third Circuit’s reading of FELA’s undefined “railroad.”

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in clear stages:

  1. Threshold statutory scope: FELA applies to employees of “common carrier[s] by railroad” engaged in interstate commerce, but it does not define “railroad.” Courts therefore look to Congress’s treatment of rail systems across cognate statutes. Using the in pari materia canon, those statutes strongly and consistently distinguish interstate railroads from urban rapid transit operations.
  2. Two touchstones:
    • Services: Does the operator provide long-haul passenger and interstate freight transportation (typical of industrial railroads), or is it a high-frequency, short-haul urban passenger system serving a single metropolitan area (typical of rapid transit)?
    • Operations and infrastructure: Is the operator meaningfully integrated with the general railroad system—compatible power/clearance, shared or interlined trackage, freight capability—or is it an isolated system with third-rail electrification and incompatible infrastructure that effectively precludes integration?
  3. Application to PATCO’s Speed Line:
    • Services: The Speed Line runs 24/7 over roughly 14.5 miles between Philadelphia and Lindenwold, New Jersey, with frequent headways (as low as 6 minutes during peaks), serving 4.9 million riders in 2022. It carries no freight. These features are prototypical of urban rapid transit, not FELA railroads.
    • Infrastructure/Integration: The Speed Line uses third-rail electrification, has trackage clearance incompatible with neighboring systems (SEPTA, NJ Transit), and shares neither track nor operations. A single, decade-old maintenance use of a spur connection to access NJT trackage is legally inconsequential (“de minimis”) and not freight service. Fare promotions with SEPTA’s subway are irrelevant to FELA’s industrial-hazard focus.
  4. Rejection of the estate’s narrowing arguments:
    • The estate’s attempt to restrict “urban rapid transit” to streetcar/bus systems operating “on, over and under the streets” of one city is inconsistent with decades of authority distinguishing local rapid transit from industrial railroads based on function and integration, not street-right-of-way use.
    • Scala is not controlling on these facts and is difficult to harmonize with later cases; the Third Circuit follows the more comprehensive frameworks in Omaha & Council Bluffs, Mangum, Ferguson, and its own Felton precedent.
  5. Procedural posture and standard of review:
    • The defendants mounted a factual challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). The District Court permitted jurisdictional discovery and ultimately granted dismissal. On appeal, the Third Circuit reviewed legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error, affirming.

Impact and Practical Consequences

  • FELA coverage narrowed for urban rapid transit in the Third Circuit
    • This decision cements that third-rail, short-haul urban passenger systems with no meaningful integration into the general railroad network are not “railroads” under FELA. PATCO’s Speed Line joins the category of rapid transit (like subways) excluded from FELA.
  • Commuter rail remains different—especially ex-Conrail lines
    • SEPTA’s Regional Rail, NJ Transit commuter lines, and other systems that share track, interline with freight or Amtrak, or originate as former Conrail services often remain within FELA’s ambit. The decision underscores that true “commuter rail” integrated into the general system is treated differently from “rapid transit.”
  • Litigation strategy and pleading implications
    • Employees seeking FELA coverage must plausibly allege and ultimately prove integration with the general railroad system and industrial-rail characteristics (e.g., freight handling, shared trackage, compatible power/clearance, interchanges, dispatching, and connections that are more than de minimis).
    • Transit authorities can mount factual 12(b)(1) challenges, prompting jurisdictional discovery on integration and service profile. Evidence of isolated or promotional connections, or one-off maintenance uses of other railroads’ tracks, will not suffice to establish railroad status.
  • Alternative remedies and regulatory backdrop
    • Because FELA is the exclusive federal remedy for covered railroad employees, its inapplicability means injured urban rapid transit workers typically must rely on state-law tort remedies (subject to immunities) or workers’ compensation. The court expressly recognizes policy debates about FELA’s modern relevance but reiterates that any expansion to cover rapid transit must come from Congress.
    • The opinion also emphasizes that the Locomotive Inspection Act and the Safety Appliance Act do not themselves create private rights of action; they are enforceable by railroad employees only through FELA. Where FELA does not apply, those federal statutes cannot independently sustain claims.
  • Doctrinal clarity via in pari materia
    • The court’s cross-statutory analysis aligns FELA with the structure of related federal railroad legislation (RUIA, RRA, LIA), enhancing uniformity in how “railroad” and “rapid transit” are treated across federal law.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Common carrier by railroad: A railroad that offers transportation services to the public for hire and is engaged in interstate commerce. Under FELA, only employees of such carriers can sue for work-related injuries.
  • Urban rapid transit: High-frequency, short-distance passenger rail within a metropolitan area (e.g., subways, third-rail lines), typically not carrying freight and not integrated into the national railroad network.
  • General railroad system of transportation: The interconnected national network of freight and intercity/commuter railroads capable of sharing trackage, equipment, and operations—often with compatible power and clearance standards.
  • In pari materia: A canon of statutory interpretation instructing courts to read statutes on the same subject together to harmonize meanings, especially when a key term (like “railroad”) is undefined in one statute but spelled out in others.
  • Third-rail electrification and clearance: Power and physical dimensions that often make urban rapid transit equipment incompatible with mainline railroads’ overhead catenary or diesel operations and with typical freight/Amtrak clearance envelopes.
  • De minimis integration: Incidental or one-time interactions (e.g., a maintenance move via a spur) that are too trivial to transform a rapid transit system into a railroad for FELA purposes.
  • Factual Rule 12(b)(1) challenge: A jurisdictional motion disputing the truth of jurisdiction-conferring facts alleged in the complaint, allowing the court to weigh evidence beyond the pleadings; appellate review of factual findings is for clear error.

Conclusion

The Third Circuit’s decision definitively articulates a practical, two-touchstone test to determine whether a rail-based entity is a FELA “railroad” or an urban rapid transit system: look to the nature of the services provided and the system’s operations and infrastructure. Applying this framework, PATCO’s Speed Line—short-haul, high-frequency urban passenger service with third-rail power, no freight carriage, and no meaningful integration with the general railroad system—falls outside FELA’s ambit.

The ruling clarifies that urban rapid transit workers cannot invoke FELA absent genuine integration into the interstate railroad network, while commuter rail systems connected to the general railroad system (including ex-Conrail lines) remain covered. It also underscores the importance of jurisdictional facts and the viability of factual Rule 12(b)(1) challenges in FELA cases. Finally, the court signals that any expansion of FELA to cover modern urban transit risks must come from Congress, not judicial redefinition.

Key Takeaways

  • New doctrinal clarity: A services-and-infrastructure test now guides FELA “railroad” status in the Third Circuit.
  • Urban rapid transit excluded: Third-rail, short-haul, non-integrated systems like PATCO’s Speed Line are not FELA railroads.
  • Integration matters: Meaningful connectivity to the general railroad system (not de minimis contacts) is crucial to FELA coverage.
  • Statutory harmony: The decision aligns FELA with related federal railroad statutes that carve out urban rapid transit.
  • Practical litigation cue: Expect jurisdictional discovery and factual challenges focused on freight, interlining, power/clearance compatibility, and shared trackage.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Comments