Historic FELA Cases in the Northeast That Changed Railroad Injury Law
For more than a century, the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) has been the safety net that allows injured railroad employees to sue for full compensation instead of relying on state workers’-compensation schemes. Its reach is nationwide, yet some of the most influential decisions arose along the busy Northeast corridor—home to Conrail, Metro-North, Amtrak, and a host of regional lines.
The cases below illustrate why juries—and sometimes the U.S. Supreme Court—have pushed railroads to raise safety standards and pay fair railroad settlements. They also explain how verdicts influence current railroad injury settlement amounts. If you or a loved one has been hurt on the rails, call 800-654-7245 or use our secure contact form for a personalized case review with a seasoned team focused on FELA victories.
1. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall (1994, Pennsylvania)
The Decision
Two track-maintenance workers suffered severe psychological trauma—one after witnessing a co-worker collapse and die, the other from relentless 70-hour workweeks. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that emotional distress can be compensable when a railroad’s negligence exposes a worker to foreseeable physical danger, adopting the “zone-of-danger” test under FELA.
Why It Still Matters
Gottshall broadened the damage landscape, reminding carriers that toxic schedules and pressure-cooker conditions can be as hazardous as faulty brakes. Today, claims for stress-induced heart attacks or post-traumatic stress are stronger because the case ties mental harm directly to safety lapses—often producing substantial FELA case settlements when employers fail to staff adequately.
Workers who experience suicidal ideation, panic disorders, or cardiac events after dangerous assignments should insist that these losses be included in the FELA claims process—and defendants can no longer hide behind the fiction that “only broken bones count.”
2. Bailey v. Central Vermont Railway (1943, Vermont)
The Decision
Bernard E. Bailey was crushed by rolling cars on an icy switching lead. The railroad argued it had no duty to salt the tracks during a winter storm, but the Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict, ruling that the question of negligence belonged to the jury.
Why It Still Matters
Bailey cemented FELA’s employee-friendly burden of proof: plaintiffs need only show that railroad negligence played any part, however slight, in producing an injury. That low threshold remains critical in disputes over railroad injury settlements, where defendants often claim pre-existing degeneration.
Because jurors—not judges—decide safety, railroads must document every precaution or face liability. Photographs of untreated ice, faulty walkways, or dim yard lighting will keep your claim on track toward meaningful compensation.
3. Calabritto v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RR (1961, Connecticut & New York)
The Decision
While policing a commuter yard, Jerry Calabritto slipped on oil-soaked ballast and tore knee ligaments. The Second Circuit upheld his verdict, stressing that even employees tasked with protecting property deserve a hazard-free workplace.
Why It Still Matters
The case clarified that “assumption of risk” died with FELA; railroad police, signal maintainers, and inspectors cannot be blamed for merely doing their jobs amid known dangers. That principle fuels modern six-figure railroad disability claims when security or mechanical crews walk uneven ballast, ascend shaky ladders, or patrol active tracks.
Document every spill or tripping hazard immediately—photos and incident reports prevent the defense from arguing that you should have “watched your step,” an excuse Calabritto soundly rejected. Successful verdicts from Cahill & Perry, including a $653,000 foot-injury verdict for a conductor and a $2.67 million lumbar award for an Amtrak conductor, echo this protective standard.
4. Eichel v. New York Central Railroad (1963, New York)
The Decision
Walter Eichel, a 40-year veteran brakeman, obtained $51,000 for permanent hip damage. On appeal the railroad insisted the jury should hear that he was receiving Railroad Retirement disability payments. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that such collateral-source evidence would unfairly reduce damages and distract from employer negligence.
Why It Still Matters
Eichel protects the value of today’s railroad injury settlement amounts by stopping railroads from introducing Social Security, V.A., or private disability benefits to claim a “credit.” Injured workers keep the full verdict they win, ensuring they are not penalized for having prudent disability coverage.
When negotiating FELA settlements, refuse any offset for pensions or sickness benefits; the Supreme Court says they are irrelevant. Accurate life-care plans and economic reports should therefore drive higher numbers during mediation.
5. Cragan v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RR (1965, Massachusetts)
The Decision
Railroad police officer John Cragan alleged that a supervisor’s negligence in staffing high-crime areas left him vulnerable, resulting in physical assault. A Massachusetts jury agreed, and the First Circuit affirmed, underscoring that railroads must consider foreseeable third-party violence when designing safety protocols.
Why It Still Matters
Cragan forms the backbone of modern claims involving assaults on conductors and ticket agents. Employers that ignore broken lighting, inadequate security cameras, or understaffed trains risk large FELA case settlements—especially when surveillance video shows known risks.
File written safety complaints early and keep copies; Cragan proves these records become powerful exhibits when a jury decides whether management “could have prevented” your injuries.
What to Expect in Your Own Claim
Cahill & Perry, P.C. Attorneys at Law has spent four decades turning the case lessons into life-changing recoveries for injured rail workers. When you need proven trial advocates who understand how precedent drives value, call 800-654-7245 or contact us today for a comprehensive evaluation and put a history of courtroom success to work for you.
