Jury Orders Union Pacific to Pay $2 Million in Crossing Death

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

CHEYENNE, WYO. (AP) A federal jury has ordered the Union Pacific to pay $2 Million to the heirs of a man killed at a railroad crossing west of Cheyenne two years ago.

The jury on Monday ruled that the company was partially responsible for the death of Donald Pribbernow. He and Tim Hill were killed when their pickup truck was struck by a train in December 2003.

Paula Fegler, Pribbernow’s daughter, filed the lawsuit. It claims that the railroad failed to mark the crossing with warnings and that the railroad buildings along the crossing blocked people using it from seeing the tracks.

Union Pacific had argued that Pribbernow was negligent and that he and Hill were trespassing at a private crossing when they were killed.

The private crossing is marked with a sign that reads, “Private RXR crossing, no trespassing, right to pass by permission, subject to control of owner”.

Pribbernow and Hill had been working at a quarry at Granite Canyon before the accident. They worked for McGarvin Moberly, a contractor that hauls sand and gravel for the Wyoming Department of Transportation.

Court records say that the employees at the quarry commonly used the road and crossed the tracks, as do the employees of a ranch there.

The jury decided that both the Union Pacific and the driver of the pickup truck were negligent, but that the company was more negligent.

Lawyer Mark Macy represented Pribbernow’s estate. “Our hope is that Union Pacific puts up some safety devices at the crossing to prevent any further deaths.”, he said. “They have not done that. The only thing they did was attempt to close the crossing after the lawsuit.”

James Barnes, director of media information for Union Pacific, said Tuesday th

2

Yet another example for someone doing somthing incredibly ‘stoopid’, and suing.

3

… Idiots… It really kind of irks me when people who are in the wrong, sue and get lost of money for thier own mistakes…

Thanks for the news link! I loked around a bit, and I actually found out some news from the state that our local paper didn’t even cover. It really sheds new light on the upcoming election. I keep telling the publisher that her paper is not worth reading. But then I just get yelled at and told to quit runing the family dinner… Maybe I will show her this link and ask her why the paper from a city 300 miles away covered the story, but she didn’t.

4

Once again stupidity trumps law. Maybe it is time for the train crew to sue the perps who get hit by trains or there families, wonder what they would say to that.

5

If this accident were to happen on SRT, those guy woudn’t get any money from SRT but, they will get a visit from Railway Police Detachment and/or invoice for damages.

I remember a grade crossing incident involving Train 36 (Butterworth, Malaysia-Bangkok)and a big rig. Results: The trucker’s insurance company got some big invoice for the damage done to loco No. 4526 (He still sits in the dead line at Makkasan shop with uncertain fate). [B)]

6

Once again, it appears that someone assumed there was a freedom of stupidity clause in the Constitution somewhere and exercised said right in front of a train. Apparently, the jury thought the same thing. Not only do I hope these idiots don’t get a dime through the appeals I’m sure UP will put up, I also hope the crew sues the knuckleheads for distress and trauma from the incident!

“Always expect a train on any track at any time”

7

I remember hearing about a Japanese law that not only presumed that the road vehicle driver was responsible for any accident at a grade crossing, but gave every passenger delayed by such an accident the right to individually sue the driver for lost time, inconvenience and/or physical injury.

Granted that Japan has a lot more passenger trains than the US, but what would happen here if every rail customer financially impacted by delay of a time-sensitive shipment had, and exercised, the same right?

Chuck

8

Can you say bankcruptcy?

9

I’m sure that insurance will pay most of the bill… Then the insurance premiums rise which means that railroad will raise their rates causing the freight that they haul that ends ups in the store where you and me buy it to rise in price. So in the end, everybody get out your wallets and throw in your [2c].

CC

10

Finally, someone who understands these jury awards aren’t FREE MONEY.

11

Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but the last time I looked I recall the RRs operated out of a self-insured pool, which means the money is even more real than you may have thought.

12

Oh for gosh sakes don’t. Journalists and wives think they’re above criticisim. And they really resent it.

Just say “Honey, that was a really great paper you put out today, and this is a really wonderful dinner” You could ask her how long it took her to microwave it, but that would be a big mistake.

.

13

It’s time once again to consider the candidates for the annual Stella Awards. The Stella’s are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds. That case inspired the Stella Awards for the most frivolous successful lawsuits in the United States.

The following are the candidates:

  1. Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a nightclub in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.

  2. Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next-door neighbor’s beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner’s fenced yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

  3. A 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn’t notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor’s hub caps.

  4. A. Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 a! after she slipped on a soft drink spill and broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

  5. Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn’t reenter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on va

14

After watching all those shows on TV like “Law and Order,” one may wonder just how much of the information posted in the above list was heard by the jury to make the decision. [?]

15

It’s always nice to see who’s getting part of my insurance payments!

CC

16

How rediculous is this, if you can’t be smart enough to look both ways at a crossing and see a train, you get what you deserve and in this case the guy died. In my opinion, the guy got what he deserved by being stupid. Now UP has to pay because someone is sue happy and I cannot believe the jury actually ordered UP to pay when it is not UP’s fault, it is some idiot’s fault. One less idiot to beat trains.

17

[quote user=“zardoz”]
It’s time once again to consider the candidates for the annual Stella Awards. The Stella’s are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds. That case inspired the Stella Awards for the most frivolous successful lawsuits in the United States.

The following are the candidates:

  1. Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a nightclub in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.

  2. Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next-door neighbor’s beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner’s fenced yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

  3. A 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn’t notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor’s hub caps.

  4. A. Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 a! after she slipped on a soft drink spill and broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

  5. Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn’t reenter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it sh

18

The article specifically stated that the view of trains at the crossing was obstructed due to Union Pacific owned buildings - hence, it was a case where a person may not have seen a train even if they did take all precautions. Hence, the warning sign to look at trains was inadequate warning and the railroad or crossing owner (as a private crossing) should have installed something such as warning lights given the obstructed view. Of course, the article doesn’t give all facts of the case (for example there is no mention about whether the train was using its whistle), but juries rarely give verdicts which are completely unsupported by the evidence.

Yes, the driver was at least partially at fault, but in a comparative negligence state (which is the majority of states), that only goes to the amount of damages. People should be viligant around trains, but you shouldn’t completely blame the victims in a case where there is an obstructed crossing.