Railroad Injury Settlements
As a railroad injury settlement lawyer, I often hear from clients who have been hurt while on a train or other railroad vehicle. The majority of people file claims for injuries sustained in an accident on the train, but there are also claims against the businesses that own the vehicle. For instance, a recent case involved a Metra employee who was hit in the back of his head while shoveling snow on the track. The case resulted in a confidential settlement.
Conductor v. Railroad
If you are an injured railroad worker, you could be entitled to compensation under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The law states that railroads must provide their employees with the safety of their workplace and medical treatment regardless of whether they were not at fault.
A
railroad injuries lawsuit conductor filed a lawsuit against the railroad for negligence under FELA. The conductor suffered knee and back injuries. His supervisors accused him of false injury reports. The conductor accepted an alternative job at the railroad.
The FELA lawsuit must be filed within three years of the date of the accident. It is usually not worth filing a case unless the railroad is responsible. If the railroad violated any safety requirements however, you could sue them under other safety laws.
There are a myriad of laws and regulations that govern the operation of railroads. It is essential to know these laws to be aware of your rights. For instance the FRSA allows rail employees to report dangerous or illegal activities without fear of being retaliated against. A variety of other federal laws can be used to establish strict liability.
A skilled railroad injury lawyer can assist you or someone you love in case you've been injured on the job. Hach & Rose LLP can help. They have secured millions of dollars in settlements for railroad workers who suffered injuries. They are skilled at representing union members, and are well-known for their personal attention.
Michael Rose is a member of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association Labor Law Committee. He is a specialist in FELA and
railroad injuries Attorney employment discrimination claims and has been involved in numerous verdicts of seven figures. RailRoad Ties is his blog and is a great source of information about federal employee rights.
FELA is a highly specialized field. However, a skilled attorney is crucial in a successful case. To prevail in a FELA suit railroad must prove that they were negligent and their equipment was insufficient.
There are numerous laws and regulations you must be aware of, whether you are a railroad passenger, a railroad worker, or a consumer. If you've been injured by a railroad employee or owned by an employee-owned railroad, get in touch with an experienced
railroad injuries attorney today.
Locomotive engineer v. Railroad (confidential settlement)
A locomotive engineer and a conductor were injured while working. They reached a confidential settlement that resolved their case. This verdict is among the largest in Texas for 2020.
The case was decided in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. The judge also added one million dollars worth of expert witness fees and
railroad Injuries attorney interest on prejudgment.
The
railroad injuries attorney claimed that the accident never took place, and claimed the claim should be dismissed. They also claimed that the plaintiff claimed injury for work-related reasons. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.
The jury awarded $275,000 to the locomotive engineer. The jury determined that the engineer sustained serious injuries and required lumbar surgery. The defendants sought relief based on theories of product liability and breach of contract.
The
railroad injuries case claimed that the claim was frivolous and filed a Petition for Review with the Eighth Circuit. The judge in the case determined that the railroad's claims were frivolous and denied the railroad's motion to dismiss.
The case was also heard in Jefferson County District Court, Kentucky. The court ruled that the injuries suffered by the locomotive engineer were serious enough to warrant surgery. The
railroad injuries settlement's attorney argued that the claim was unfounded and should be dismissed.
The UPRR Locomotive Engineer died in the course of a train crash, when the brakes failed. The train was moving to the west of Cheyenne, WY, when the brakes failed. The braking system was catastrophic.
Locomotive inspection law requires that locomotives operate in a secure, reliable way. A locomotive is required to be in good operating order. If it is not repaired, it should be replaced. The locomotive could become unserviceable when it isn't fixed.
The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Locomotive Engineer was injured when the backrest of his seat in the locomotive broke. The company sued Seats, Inc. to recover its costs. The locomotive engineer suffered shoulder and lumbar injuries. The railroad offered $100,000 to settle the matter.
The National Railroad Adjustment Board does not resolve disputes arising from working conditions, however, the participants in a conference might. If the parties are unable to agree to a conference the matter is referred by a presiding Officer. The presiding officer can be an administrative law judge or other person appointed by the Administrator.
Union Pacific Railroad welder v. Union Pacific Railroad
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to change the burden of proof for railroad workers who sued under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The court rejected the majority of railroads' attempts to weaken the law.
The Federal Employers' Liability Act was passed by Congress in 1908. FELA allows railroad workers injured to sue their employers for injuries sustained in the workplace. Additionally, it protects railroaders from retaliation by their employers. Particularly, FELA prohibits a railroad from retaliating at a worker who divulges information regarding safety violations. The Locomotive Inspection Act is an additional law that requires railroads to perform regular inspections on their equipment.
Union Pacific argues that locomotives in the rail yard are not "in use" under FELA. The statute only applies to locomotives that are operating on the railroad's track. To be considered in "use", a locomotive must be in active operation and hauling trains. However locomotives that aren't in usage are being parked.
Union Pacific contends that evidence is equivocal about whether or not the locomotive was in operation. This argument is similar to Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent from the 1993 gun case.
The 7th Circuit, which affirmed the district court's dismissal and affirmed the railroads' argument was inconsistent. However, the court recognized that a different approach could be used to determine if the locomotive was operating.
Union Pacific argued that the railroads' interpretation of the Locomotive Inspection Act was not properly analyzed of the law. It was an unintended result of a faulty analysis. Additionally, Union Pacific is asserting that the statute applies to locomotives only when they are in a moving position. This is contrary to LeDure's reading of cases.
The Missouri Supreme Court explained to us that Nebraska and Iowa courts made decisions based on a partial analysis of the law. The court did not consider the rulings to be a sufficient basis for tax withholding on FELA judgments.
The Locomotive Inspection Act was adopted by the National Transportation Safety Board. The agency is currently looking into the incident.