Legal Opinion

Jerald E. Bloom v. Consolidated Rail Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided December 12, 1994No. 93-1903PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

BECKER, Circuit Judge.

This appeal requires that we apply the zone of danger test recently announced in Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 2396, 129 L.Ed.2d 427 (1994), to a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The claim was brought by plaintiff Jerald E. Bloom, a railroad employee, against his employer Consolidated Rail Corporation (“Conrail”) under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq. (1986), and resulted in a large judgment in his favor against Conrail. Bloom’s injuries were caused by the…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Consolidated Rail Corporation v. GottshallSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway v. BuellSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Niederman v. BrodskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  4. Johnson v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  5. Deutsch v. SheinKentucky Supreme Court · 1980

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. ZF Meritor LLC v. Eaton CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2012
  2. Continental Casualty Co. v. Diversified Industries, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1995
  3. Lepage's Incorporated v. 3m (Minnesota Mining And Manufacturing Company)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2003
  4. James E. Gottshall v. Consolidated Rail CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
  5. Collins v. Union County JailSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1997

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API