Cases
Significant Cases: Kreps, Special Representative of the Estate of Arenz v. BNSF: (2018) Represented BNSF Railway Company in the Circuit Court of McDonough Co., IL
the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District in a FELA case. The trial court granted summary judgment for the railroad
the appellate court affirmed. Before that, the defense was successful at having the lawsuit transferred to McDonough County on a contested motion to transfer for intra-state forum non conveniens . Plaintiff claimed he sustained severe
permanent injuries to his foot, shoulder,
body while stepping off a railroad truck during work. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that ... defendant failed to provide plaintiff with a safe place to work by having large rocks or debris in the yard compound which prevented plaintiff from having secure footing while exiting the truck. The plaintiff's supervisor's report taken on the day of the alleged injury disclosed that [Plaintiff] says he didn't step on anything or twist his ankle, only he had a sharp pain which caused his right foot to give way .... . The defense presented additional evidence from witnesses
treating physicians that showed a complete lack of evidence that supported the plaintiff's theory that he was injured in whole or in part because he stepped on a large rock
that he had not stepped on any rock at all. In granting summary judgment, the trial court noted there was no evidence that there were large rocks in the yard, nor that that an illusory large rock caused (Plaintiff's) injury. The defense also proved that there was no causal relationship between the incident
the plaintiff's claimed shoulder
body injuries. In affirming the trial court, the appellate court ruled that ... plaintiff failed to establish a question of material fact concerning defendant's negligence in not using reasonable care to ensure plaintiff a safe work environment.
Winkler v. BNSF: (2015) Defended BNSF Railway in a FELA jury trial in state court in Galesburg, IL. Plaintiff, who was 47 years old at the time of the incident with four years of service, suffered a broken left rib, lacerated left kidney,
a bruised lung after being struck by a cut of railroad cars while setting h
brakes in the Galesburg train yard in December of 2009. Much of the testimony
evidence at trial centered around how the accident occurred
the applicable rules. Plaintiff alleged that just before the accident he received communication from the Hump Tower Yardmaster that there was a block on Track 19,
that after the accident he was told for the first time that the track was blocked
rolling, which means that train cars could still be coming down the track. Plaintiff
his expert opined that the use of the term blocked
rolling is ambiguous
that a track cannot be blocked
also have cars rolling. Plaintiff also alleged that he had never heard the term until after the incident, although several BNSF witnesses testified that the term was explained during plaintiff's training
on at least two other occasions. Plaintiff also alleged his training was deficient because he was told it was permissible to straddle the rail when setting a h
brake in the bowl,
that he was not familiar with his job responsibilities on the day of the accident. Plaintiff asked the jury for a minimum of $767,000, but received net verdict of $28,000, which reflected the jury's decision to reduce his overall damages by 50% based on the plaintiff's own negligence.
Furrow v. BNSF: (2014) Represented BNSF Railway Company at trial in case that was brought under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA),
tried to a defense verdict in state court in Galesburg, Illinois. In the underlying incident, the plaintiff, a BNSF machine operator, claimed he injured his neck while operating an end-loader to move 20-30 pieces of rail from one side of the tracks to the other. The plaintiff alleged his injury resulted in his undergoing a two-level discectomy
spinal fusion. Plaintiff argued at trial that the operating procedures in place at the time of his injury were improper,
, based on other prior events, BNSF should have known to instruct him to perform the task differently. In defense, BNSF called a biomechanical engineer to refute the way the injury allegedly happened,
presented testimony, including from a former Director of Maintenance for another railroad, that the equipment was safe, appropriate for the task,
consistent with industry practices.
