Railroad Injury Settlements
I am often contacted by railroad injury settlement lawyers from people who suffered injuries during a ride on trains or other railroad vehicles. Most people claim for injuries sustained in a train accident, but there are also claims against the companies that own the vehicle. One recent case involved a Metra employee who was struck in the back of his head as he shoveled snow along the track. This case was settled confidentially.
Conductor v. Railroad
If you’ve been injured as a railroad worker, then you may be entitled to compensation under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). This law requires railroads to provide safe working conditions as well as medical care for employees, regardless of fault.
A railroad conductor has sued the carson city Railroad Injuries lawsuit due to alleged negligence under FELA. The conductor suffered back and knee injuries. His supervisors accused him of filing an untrue injury report. The railroad offered him a new position.
The FELA lawsuit is not to be filed at least three years after the incident. In general, it’s not worth bringing a lawsuit unless the railroad was at fault. If the railroad has 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. You should be aware of these laws and regulations to be aware of your rights. For railroad injuries lawyer in whittier example the FRSA permits rail workers to report dangerous or illegal actions without fear of reprisal. Other federal laws can be used to establish strict liability.
An experienced attorney for railroad injuries can assist you or someone you love when you’ve been injured on the job. An attorney at Hach & Rose, LLP can help. They have secured millions of dollars in settlements to injured railroad workers. They are skilled at representing union members and are well-known for their personal attention.
Michael Rose is a member the New York State Trial Lawyers Association Labor Law Committee. He is an expert in FELA and discrimination-related claims and has been involved in numerous seven-figure settlements. His blog, aberdeen railroad injuries law firm Ties, is an information source on employee rights under federal law.
FELA is a specialized field, but an experienced attorney is crucial to the success of a case. To win a FELA suit railroad must prove their negligence and that their equipment was defective.
There are many laws and regulations that you need to understand whether you’re an individual railroad passenger, railroad worker or a customer. Contact a knowledgeable railroad injuries lawyer anniston injury lawyer today if you’ve been injured by a railroad employee, or employee-owned railroad.
Locomotive engineer v. Railroad (confidential settlement)
A conductor and locomotive engineer were injured at work. They reached a confidential settlement that ended their case. This is the 23rd largest jury verdict in Texas in 2020.
The case was heard 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 be allowed to stand. They also claimed that the plaintiff only filed a claim for injury after he missed work. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was in agreement.
The jury awarded $275,000 for the locomotive engineer. The jury found that the engineer’s injuries were severe enough to warrant lumbar surgery. The defendants sought relief based on theories of products liability and breach of contract.
The railroad injuries attorney in mulvane claimed that the claim was frivolous and filed a Petition for Review at the Eighth Circuit. The judge in the case ruled that the railroad’s claims were frivolous, and denied the railroad’s request to dismiss.
The case was also decided in the Jefferson County District Court, Kentucky. The court ruled that the injuries suffered by the engineer of the locomotive were serious enough to require surgical intervention. The attorney for the railroad argued that the claim was frivolous and should be dismissed.
The UPRR Locomotive Engineer died in a train collision, when the brakes failed. The brakes failed as the train was travelling west of Cheyenne (WY). The brake system failed catastrophically.
Locomotive inspection laws require locomotives operate in a secure, reliable way. A locomotive has to be in good condition, and if it is not, the locomotive must be fixed. The locomotive may not be able to function when it isn’t fixed.
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 costs. The engineer of the locomotive suffered shoulder and lumbar spine injuries. The railroad offered $100,000 to settle this issue.
The National Railroad Adjustment Board does not decide on disputes regarding working conditions, but parties at a conference could. If the parties cannot agree to attending a conference, the matter is sent to a presiding official. The presiding official could be an administrative law judge or another person who is authorized by the Administrator.
Union Pacific Railroad welder v. Union Pacific Railroad
The U.S. Supreme Court did not alter the standard of proof for railroad workers who brought lawsuits under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. The court rejected the majority of railroads’ attempts to weaken the law.
The Federal Employers’ Liability Act was adopted by Congress in 1908. FELA allows railroad employees injured to sue their employers for injuries sustained in the workplace. It protects railroaders from reprisals from their employers. Particularly, FELA forbids railroads from taking retaliatory action against employees who provide details about safety violations. Locomotive Inspection Act (or Locomotive Inspection Act) is another statute that requires railroads to check their equipment regularly.
Union Pacific argues that locomotives in the rail yard are not “in use” under FELA. The statute, however, only applies to the locomotives in use on the railroad’s line. A locomotive must be operating trains to be considered “in use”. However locomotives that aren’t in active use are parked.
Union Pacific contends that evidence is equivocal about whether the locomotive was operating. This argument is similar to Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in the 1993 gun case.
The 7th Circuit affirmed dismissal of the district court and was in agreement with railroads’ argument. The court did acknowledge that it was possible to employ an alternative method to determine whether a locomotive was actually in operation.
Union Pacific claimed that railroads interpretive interpretations of the Locomotive Inspection Act were not properly analyzed of law. It was a result of an incorrect analysis. Union Pacific also asserts that the statute only applies to locomotives when they are in a mobile position. This is contrary to LeDure’s interpretation in cases.
The Missouri Supreme Court explained that Nebraska and Iowa court rulings were based on an inadequate analysis of the law. The court ruled that the rulings were not sufficient to justify tax withholdings based on FELA decisions.
The Locomotive Inspection Act was adopted by the National Transportation Safety Board. The incident is currently being investigated by the agency.
