In the 1993 case of Consolidated Rail Corporation v. James E. Gottshall, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on whether emotional distress claims were recoverable under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The case arose when a trainman suffered an emotional breakdown after witnessing his friend and colleague die from a heart attack during their shift together. He sued his employer, Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), alleging that Conrail's negligence caused his emotional injuries by forcing them to work in extreme heat without adequate rest or water supplies. The court held that FELA does allow recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress but set forth specific criteria to limit such claims: plaintiffs must prove they were within a "zone of danger" of physical impact; they feared for their own safety because of defendant’s negligence; and this fear resulted in subsequent physical injury due to stress or fright. This decision clarified how courts should handle FELA cases involving psychological harm, establishing stricter standards for proving negligent infliction of emotional distress.

In the dissenting opinion for Consolidated Rail Corporation v. James E. Gottshall, Justice Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia, argued that the majority's decision to expand liability under Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) was misguided. They contended that FELA should not be interpreted as a general negligence statute but rather it is meant to address physical perils in railroad work only. The dissent criticized the majority for creating an arbitrary standard of foreseeability which could potentially open floodgates of litigation on any stressful event at workplace leading to emotional distress claims. They also pointed out inconsistencies in applying this new standard across different cases and warned about its potential misuse due to lack of clear boundaries.