Railroad Injury Settlements
I often get calls from railroad injury settlement lawyers from those who have been injured when riding on trains or other railroad vehicles. The majority of people file claims for injuries sustained as a result of accidents on trains, but there are also claims against the companies that own the vehicle. One case that has recently occurred involved an Metra employee who was hit on the back of his head as he shoveled snow along the track. This was a case that resulted in a confidential settlement.
Conductor v. Railroad
You may be eligible to compensation under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) in the event that you are an injured railroad worker. This law says that railroads must offer employees an environment that is safe and medical treatment, even if they were not at fault.
A railroad conductor was sued by an
railroad injuries case over alleged negligence under FELA. The conductor suffered knee and back injuries. His supervisors alleged that he had made false injury reports. The railroad offered him a new position.
The FELA lawsuit must be filed within three years of the date of the accident. Generally, it is not worth bringing a case unless the railroad is responsible. However, you have the right to sue under other safety laws in the event that the railroad has violated the appropriate statutory standard.
There are a myriad of laws and regulations governing the operation of the railroad. It is important to understand these regulations to know your rights. The FRSA for instance, guarantees that rail workers can declare illegal or unsafe actions without fear of reprisal. Other federal laws can be used to establish strict responsibility.
A skilled railroad injury lawyer can assist you or someone you care about who has been injured while working. Hach & Rose LLP can assist you. They have recovered millions of dollars in settlements to injured
railroad injuries litigation workers. They have experience in representing union members and are known for their personal service.
Michael Rose is a member the New York State Trial Lawyers Association Labor Law Committee. He is a specialist in FELA and employment discrimination claims, and has handled numerous seven figure verdicts. RailRoad Ties is his blog and a great source of information about federal employee rights.
FELA is an extremely specialized field. However, an experienced attorney is vital to winning a case. To win a FELA suit, a railroad must prove their negligence and their equipment was defective.
Whether you are an employee of a railroad, a railroad passenger, or an interested consumer, there are a myriad of laws and regulations you must be aware of. If you've been injured by a railroad worker or owned by an employee, contact an experienced
railroad injuries attorney today.
Locomotive engineer v. Railroad (confidential settlement)
A locomotive engineer and a conductor suffered injuries while working. They reached a confidential settlement which resolved their case. This verdict is among the largest in Texas for 2020.
The case was considered in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. The judge also charged prejudgment interest as well as expert witness fees of one million dollars.
The railroad denied that an accident had occurred and claimed that the claim shouldn't be allowed to stand. They also claimed that the plaintiff only had a claim for injury based on work-related causes. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was in agreement.
The jury awarded $275,000 for the locomotive engineer. The jury determined that the engineer suffered serious injuries and required surgery to the lumbar region. The defendants sought relief on the basis of product liability and
Railroad injuries attorney contract breach.
The railroad alleged that the claim was frivolous and filed a Petition for Review with the Eighth Circuit. The judge in the case decided that the railroad's claims were frivolous and denied the railroad's motion to dismiss the claim.
The case was also heard in Jefferson County District Court, Kentucky. The court found that the injuries suffered by the engineer were serious enough to require surgical intervention. The attorney for the railroad argued that the claim was insignificant and should be dismissed.
The brakes failed and the UPRR Locomotive engineer was killed in a train accident. The brakes failed while the train was traveling west of Cheyenne (WY). The brake system went out of control.
Locomotive inspection laws require locomotives operate in a safeand reliable manner. A locomotive must be in good working order. If it's not repairable, it has to be. If the locomotive isn't repaired, the engine will become unserviceable, and the engine will be unusable.
The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Locomotive Engineer was injured when the backrest of his locomotive seat shattered. Seats, Inc. was sued by the company to recover its expenses. The locomotive engineer suffered shoulder and lumbar injuries. The railroad offered $100,000 to settle the issue.
The National Railroad Adjustment Board doesn't have the authority to resolve disputes regarding working conditions. However, parties to a conference can. If the parties cannot agree to a conference , the issue is referred by an officer who is the presiding officer. The Administrator can designate a presiding official as an administrative law judge, or any other person authorized.
Union Pacific
railroad injuries compensation welder v. Union Pacific Railroad
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to alter the burden of proof for railroad workers who sue under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The court ruled against the majority of railroads' efforts to weaken the statute.
The Federal Employers' Liability Act was approved by Congress in 1908. FELA allows railroad workers injured to sue their employers for workplace injuries. Additionally, it protects railroaders from being retaliated against by their employers. Specifically, FELA prohibits a railroad from retaliating at a worker who divulges information regarding an unsafe condition. The Locomotive Inspection Act is an additional law which requires railroads to conduct regular inspections of their equipment.
Union Pacific argues that locomotives in the rail yard are not "in use" under FELA. The statute applies only to locomotives on the railroad's track. To be in "use", a locomotive must be operating actively in the hauling of a train. However, locomotives that have not been used in any capacity are in storage.
Union Pacific claims that the evidence is not conclusive in determining whether or not the locomotive was actually on. This argument is reminiscent of Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent from the 1993 gun case.
The 7th Circuit affirmed dismissal of the district court and was in agreement with railroads' arguments. However, the court recognized that a different approach could be used to determine if the locomotive was actually in operation.
Union Pacific argued that the railroads' interpretation of the Locomotive Inspection Act was not founded on a proper analysis of the law. It was an unintended result of a faulty analysis. Union Pacific also asserts that the statute only covers locomotives if they are in mobile positions. This is contrary to LeDure's interpretation of the cases.
The Missouri Supreme Court explained that Nebraska and Iowa judges' decisions were based upon an insufficient analysis of the law. The court concluded that the rulings not sufficient to justify tax withholding on FELA judgments.
The Locomotive Inspection Act was adopted by the National Transportation Safety Board. The incident is currently being investigated by the organization.