Transit Driver Disabled Due to Overheated Cab Can Keep His $11.6 Million Award

A New Jersey Transit driver who suffered career-ending injuries from overheating after he was ordered to operate a train even though his cab’s temperature was 114 degrees can keep his $11.6 million jury award.

Over objections by New Jersey Transit (NJT), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a New York federal district court finding that the train’s failed air conditioning (A/C) system qualifies under the federal Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), which makes it unlawful to use a locomotive when its “parts and appurtenances” are not “in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury.”

The federal appeals court further agreed with the district court that if a carrier creates a temperature control system that is based on having an A/C unit, then the LIA requires that the carrier maintain that system in “proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury.”

The case proceeded to trial on the LIA claim after the district court found there was sufficient evidence that NJT’s temperature control system was not in a proper condition and safe to operate.

NJT employed Scott Lupia as a locomotive engineer. On July 21, 2020, Lupia entered the cab of his assigned locomotive at Penn Station to discover that the cab’s A/C unit was not working. Lupia notified his supervisors, who measured the cab’s temperature at 114 degrees Fahrenheit. Lupia was nonetheless ordered to operate the train as scheduled. Approximately 40 minutes after departing from Penn Station, Lupia collapsed from heat exhaustion, suffering head and neck injuries which resulted in permanent, career-ending disabilities.

Lupia sued his former employer alleging that NJT violated the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), under which a common carrier is liable in damages to any employee suffering injury. Lupia’s principal theory of liability is that NJT violated FELA by failing to provide him with a locomotive with all of its “parts and appurtenances” safe to operate as required by the LIA and that as a result of such violation, he was injured.

NJT opposed Lupia’s claim, arguing that the A/C unit is not one of the “parts and appurtenances” of the locomotive covered under the LIA and, by extension, does not establish strict liability under FELA. NJT argued that the A/C unit was not one of the essential “parts and appurtenances” because Lupia “had the ability to open the windows of the cab, which was properly ventilated notwithstanding the presence of a functioning air conditioning unit.” NJT also claimed that the A/C unit was merely “one component of the temperature control system” of the train cab.

A jury returned a verdict in favor of Lupia and awarded the former engineer $450,000 for past lost earnings, $3,667,189 for future impairment to earning capacity, $900,000 for past pain and suffering, and $6,600,940 for future pain and suffering. NJT appealed.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals on August 1 affirmed the award, agreeing with the district court that an A/C unit that is part of a temperature control system may qualify as one of the “parts and appurtenances” of a locomotive under the LIA and that if a carrier bases its temperature control system on an A/C unit, then the LIA requires that the carrier maintain that A/C unit in proper condition.

Noting that NJT did not dispute that a temperature control system is an essential part of a completed locomotive, the Second Circuit court commented that “a locomotive cannot operate safely if its engineer is incapacitated from exposure to extreme heat.”

Topics Personal Auto