Coleman v. Alabama State Docks Terminal Ry.

• Decision Date: 27 March 1992
• Citation: 596 So.2d 912
• Parties: Clarence W. COLEMAN, v. ALABAMA STATE DOCKS TERMINAL RAILWAY. * 1910096.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 912

596 So.2d 912

Clarence W. COLEMAN, v. ALABAMA STATE DOCKS TERMINAL RAILWAY. ^*

1910096.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 27, 1992.

Robert J. Hedge of Jackson & Taylor, P.C., Mobile, for appellant.

G. Sage Lyons and Charles L. Miller, Jr. of Lyons, Pipes & Cook, P.C., Mobile, for appellee.

INGRAM, Justice.

Clarence W. Coleman sued the Alabama State Docks Terminal Railway ("Terminal Railway") under the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60, alleging that he was injured while working within the line and scope of his employment with Terminal Railway. Terminal Railway moved to dismiss Coleman's action, asserting its immunity from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity as provided by Art. I, § 14, Ala. Const. of 1901. The trial court granted Terminal Railway's motion, and Coleman appealed.

The only issue raised in this appeal is whether the FELA creates a cause of action against Terminal Railway enforceable in a state court notwithstanding the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

After the trial court dismissed Coleman's complaint, but before Coleman filed his brief on appeal, the United States Supreme Court released its opinion in Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways Commission, 502 U.S. 197, 112 S.Ct. 560, 116 L.Ed.2d 560 (1991). The Hilton case addressed the identical issue raised in this appeal: whether the FELA creates a cause of action against a state-owned railway enforceable in a state court notwithstanding the doctrine of sovereign immunity. A divided Court in Hilton answered that issue in the affirmative.

The plaintiff in Hilton was an employee of the South Carolina Public Railways Commission, which was created for the purpose of operating a state-owned common carrier to engage in interstate commerce by railroad. Hilton alleged that he was injured in the scope of his employment, and that the railways commission's negligence caused his injuries. The South Carolina state trial court dismissed Hilton's complaint on the grounds that his FELA suit could not be maintained against the state in a state court because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Hilton appealed to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

While Hilton's case was on appeal, the Supreme Court of South Carolina decided Freeman v. South Carolina Public Railways Commission, 302 S.C. 51, 393 S.E.2d 383 (1990). The Freeman court affirmed the dismissal of an FELA action against the railways commission, reasoning that a federal statute will not be interpreted to create a cause of action for money damages against a state unless it contains unmistakably clear language showing that Congress intended to do so. The court then decided that the text of the FELA does not subject the states to liability. When Hilton's case reached the Supreme Court of South Carolina, that court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the action in a one-sentence opinion, citing Freeman. Thereafter, the ...