{
  "id": 887207,
  "name": "ALLEN DAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELGIN, JOLIET AND EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dawson v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1994-09-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 3-94-0004",
  "first_page": "329",
  "last_page": "333",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "266 Ill. App. 3d 329"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "926 F.2d 262",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10541988
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/926/0262-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "754 F. Supp. 1364",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        7390088
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/754/1364-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "969 F.2d 727",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10517592
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/969/0727-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "569 N.E.2d 619",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 3d 1015",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2533407
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/210/1015-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 Neb. 617",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Neb.",
      "case_ids": [
        2833979
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/neb/237/0617-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 U.S. 635",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3910816
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/281/0635-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "512 U.S. 532",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        39851
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/512/0532-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 L. Ed. 1282",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed.",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "337 U.S. 163",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        572616
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/337/0163-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "970 F.2d 1350",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10519290
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/970/1350-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "361 U.S. 138",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6166482
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/361/0138-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "813 F. Supp. 1227",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        3834100
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/813/1227-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "618 N.E.2d 1262",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 Ill. App. 3d 735",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2945923
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/248/0735-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "627 N.E.2d 746",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 Ill. App. 3d 870",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2987564
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/255/0870-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "593 N.E.2d 91",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 Ill. App. 3d 624",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5214209
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/229/0624-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "407 N.E.2d 615",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 Ill. App. 3d 1094",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3192709
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/85/1094-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "470 U.S. 409",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11299390
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/470/0409-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 L. Ed. 398",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 U.S. 359",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        640731
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/342/0359-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 U.S.C. \u00a7 51",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "et seq."
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 523,
    "char_count": 7591,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.791,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0611877728944518e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5571496639379362
    },
    "sha256": "7430b70151a34c6cf28a3ba4e3882c9620870c2322cc64bec7f77f378bf0b61d",
    "simhash": "1:23333ee23af5ae82",
    "word_count": 1241
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:25:32.104609+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ALLEN DAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELGIN, JOLIET AND EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe plaintiff, Allen Dawson, filed a complaint against his employer, the defendant Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company. Plaintiff alleged the defendant acted negligently under the Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. \u00a7 51 et seq. (1990), by failing to advise him of the lack of uninsurance / underinsurance coverage on his company car. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2 \u2014 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 615 (West 1992)) alleging the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The circuit court of Will County granted the motion and allowed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff did so and the defendant filed another motion to dismiss which the court again granted. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.\nIn his amended complaint the plaintiff alleged that on March 2, 1991, while driving his company car, he was involved in an automobile coEision with another vehicle. The complaint also alleged the policy limit of the other driver was tendered to the plaintiff but failed to fully compensate him for all his injuries. The defendant did not have uninsurance/underinsurance coverage for the plaintiff\u2019s company car. Consequently, the plaintiff filed this action.\nFELA preempts State law and establishes its own uniform standards over railroad employees\u2019 claims for negligence against their employers. (Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R.R. Co. (1952), 342 U.S. 359, 96 L. Ed. 398, 72 S. Ct. 312.) However, State courts may use their own procedural rules in actions brought under FELA unless the statute directs otherwise. (St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Dickerson (1985), 470 U.S. 409, 84 L. Ed. 2d 303, 105 S. Ct. 1347.) There is no mention of motions to dismiss in FELA; consequently, we look to Illinois law for this procedural matter.\nIn Elinois, a motion to dismiss attacks the legal sufficiency of a complaint, not its factual sufficiency. (Interway, Inc. v. Alagna (1980), 85 Ill. App. 3d 1094, 407 N.E.2d 615.) All well-pleaded facts are accepted as true. (Bel-Grade, Inc. v. Etheridge (1992), 229 Ill. App. 3d 624, 593 N.E.2d 91.) The standard of review on appeal from a motion to dismiss is whether the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action; we do not consider the merits of the claim. (Commerce Bank, N.A. v. Plotkin (1994), 255 Ill. App. 3d 870, 627 N.E.2d 746.) To sufficiently state a cause of action, a complaint must set forth a legally recognized claim and plead facts which bring the claim within the cause of action. (Betts v. Crawshaw (1993), 248 Ill. App. 3d 735, 618 N.E.2d 1262.) We agree with the trial court\u2019s order granting the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nIn order to state a cause of action under FELA, an employee must show that he was injured within the scope of his employment, that his employment was in furtherance of the railroad\u2019s commerce in interstate transportation, that his employer was negligent and that this negligence played a part in causing the injury. (Williams v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (S.D. Miss. 1992), 813 F. Supp. 1227.) FELA does not make employers the insurers of their employees. (Inman v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. (1959), 361 U.S. 138, 4 L. Ed. 2d 198, 80 S. Ct. 242.) Rather, an injured employee must prove his employer acted negligently in some way. (Jordan v. Southern Ry. Co. (4th Cir. 1992), 970 F.2d 1350.) Determining which actions constitute negligence is a Federal question. (Urie v. Thompson (1949), 337 U.S. 163, 93 L. Ed. 1282, 69 S. Ct. 1018.) However, where FELA is silent on a particular matter, then the common law is used to aid our inquiry. Consolidated R. Corp. v. Gottshall (1994), 512 U.S. 532, 129 L. Ed. 2d 427, 114 S. Ct. 2396.\nWe agree with the circuit court\u2019s ruling. FELA is a broad remedial statute enacted by Congress to prevent injury and protect the safety of railway employees. (Jamison v. Encarnacion (1930), 281 U.S. 635, 74 L. Ed. 1082, 50 S. Ct. 440.) However, neither FELA, nor any other Federal statute or decision requires railroad employers to notify their employees about the lack of uninsurance/underinsurance coverage on company vehicles. Likewise, we have failed to find any similar duty created through our common law. In fact, we have found only one other court which has addressed this issue and it has dismissed it as well. (See Chapman v. Union Pacific R.R. (1991), 237 Neb. 617, 467 N.W.2d 388.) In Chapman, the supreme court of Nebraska was also confronted by a plaintiff who sued his railroad employer under FELA for failing to advise him of the lack of uninsurance/underinsurance coverage on his company vehicle. The court held that neither Federal nor State law required the employer to provide indemnificatory insurance for his employees. Consequently, in the absence of such a statutory or common law duty, the plaintiff had no recognizable claim. We find this reasoning persuasive and, therefore, also decline to interpret FELA as requiring such a disclosure.\nThe plaintiff argues the public policy of Illinois supports the imposition of this duty on railroad employers. He relies on section 143a(2) of the Illinois Insurance Code (Code) (215 ILCS 5/143a(2) (West 1992)) to find this duty. We disagree. While it is true that section 143a(2) of the Code mandates the offer of uninsurance/ underinsurance coverage to an insured by an insurer, we do not believe it creates a similar duty for railroad employers under FELA.\nMoreover, we do not believe it is a breach of duty when an employer fails to carry such insurance. The Code does not require an insured to purchase uninsured/underinsured coverage. Rather, it only requires uninsurance/underinsurance availability to an insured. (Orr v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. (1991), 210 Ill. App. 3d 1015, 569 N.E.2d 619.) In this case the defendant merely chose not to carry such insurance.\nFinally, we fail to see how the defendant\u2019s failure to advise plaintiff of the lack of uninsurance / underinsurance played any part in causing the plaintiff\u2019s injury. Under FELA, a plaintiff must show a causal connection between the injuries received and the negligence of the employer. (Bissett v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co. (8th Cir. 1992), 969 F.2d 727.) As long as the negligence played any part in injury, then the causation element is satisfied. (Beeber v. Norfolk Southern Corp. (N.D. Ind. 1990), 754 F. Supp. 1364.) Thus, we realize FELA has a less stringent standard for interpreting causation than do normal tort theories. (Hines v. Consolidated R. Corp. (3d Cir. 1991), 926 F.2d 262.) However, there still must be some causal connection between the injury and the negligence. In this case, the plaintiff\u2019s injuries, resulted from his collision with another motorist. They did not arise from the absence, or nondisclosure of the lack, of uninsurance/ underinsurance. We therefore conclude the circuit court correctly determined that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action under FELA.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSLATER, P.J., and BARRY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE STOUDER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Laird M. Ozmon and Douglas J. Simpson, both of Laird M. Ozmon, Ltd., of Joliet (James P. Stevenson, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "George W. Gessler and Eric A. Berg, both of Gessler, Flynn, Fleischmann, Hughes & Socol, Ltd., of Chicago (William P. Jones, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ALLEN DAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELGIN, JOLIET AND EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 3 \u2014 94\u20140004\nOpinion filed September 22, 1994.\nLaird M. Ozmon and Douglas J. Simpson, both of Laird M. Ozmon, Ltd., of Joliet (James P. Stevenson, of counsel), for appellant.\nGeorge W. Gessler and Eric A. Berg, both of Gessler, Flynn, Fleischmann, Hughes & Socol, Ltd., of Chicago (William P. Jones, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0329-01",
  "first_page_order": 347,
  "last_page_order": 351
}