Hebert v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

Background

Paul Hebert, an injured rail-yard worker who fell on the job in 1969, sued the railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (the federal law allowing railroad employees to sue for work injuries). The railroad argued Hebert was employed by a separate trucking subsidiary it owned, not by the railroad itself. The District Court accepted that view and granted summary judgment for the railroad, relying on a Ninth Circuit decision known as Kelley.

Reasoning

The key question was whether Hebert should be treated as a railroad employee for purposes of the federal injury law. The Supreme Court declined to review the case and denied Hebert’s petition for further review, leaving the lower-court outcome intact. Justice Blackmun, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented from that denial and argued the case should be sent back for reconsideration in light of this Court’s later ruling in Kelley, which set out control-based tests (borrowed servant, dual masters, subservant) for determining employment for this law.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, Hebert does not get a new Supreme Court decision applying the Kelley standards, and the trial-court finding that he was employed by the trucking subsidiary remains effective in this case. The dissent points out that on remand in Kelley the injured worker recovered, suggesting that a reexamination under those standards could change outcomes in similar cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun (with Justice Brennan) would have granted review, vacated the judgment, and ordered reconsideration under the Court’s Kelley guidance about employer control.