Norfolk Southern vs. Sorell

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

Norfolk Southern Can Try To Cut Jury Award Again According to Supreme Court

January 10, 2007: DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON (AP)–The Supreme Court on Wednesday gave Norfolk Southern Railway Co. another opportunity in its effort to reduce a $1.5 million jury award to an injured worker.

In a 9-0 decision, the court agreed with the railroad that the same legal standard applies to railroad negligence as to contributory negligence by employees under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.

During a civil trial in Missouri, lawyers for the railroad objected to the jury instruction for employee contributory negligence, saying it provided a “different” and “much more exacting” standard for causation than the jury instruction for the railroad’s negligence.

The Supreme Court returned the case to Missouri courts for further proceedings.

Timothy Sorrell had sued the railroad in Missouri state court after he suffered neck and back injuries. He said the dump truck he was driving tipped on its side on a gravel road next to the tracks.

Sorrell said the railroad failed to provide him a reasonably safe place to work. Norfolk Southern said Sorrell’s own negligence caused the accident.

The case is Norfolk Southern v. Sorrell, 05-746.

Details of the accident and case can be found here: Article

Exerpt from the article: “Currently Timothy Sorrell, who is now 50 years old, never returned to his position as a trackman. When he failed rehabilitation tests, Norfolk Southern told him it did not have any other job for him. Two years after the accident, the railroad took away his insurance and a year later cut off the insurance for his wheelchair-bound wife, who suffers from multiple sclerosis.”

Is NS correct in fighting to reduce the award amount, or should they just drop the case?

2

Here is your answer for why NS appealed - to cite the article - “If Norfolk Southern prevails, the railroad industry, which employs about 240,000 people in the United States, would stand to save millions of dollars in financial liabilities related to workplace accidents. The case would also clarify the interpretation of FELA, which differs among some state and federal courts.”

Translation, NS did not like the way that Missouri courts applied the FELA law and wanted to apply the rule in Missouri that other states had applied for comparative negligence. They were fighting this case because of the collective effect and worry that more people would sue in Missouri (note that while the accident occurred in Indiana, the law suit was filed in Missouri - FELA allows the plaintiff to sue in any forum where the defendant railroad has tracks). The railroads were afraid that if the lower court decision stood, they would face a lot more suits in Missouri.

Chances are good that some sort of settlement will be reached - the railroad has already been found at least partially negligent in the accident and was mainly fighting damages (comparative negligence goes to the issue of damages). Now that they got the court decision they want (applying to the entire country) and uniform rules for determining negligence and damages there isn’t as much incentive (for either side) to fight. Whether the parties actually reach a settlement rather than relitigating damages remains to be seen, but it would likely be the most prudent action for both sides to take rather than having an entire new jury take up the issue of damages.

3

Read in paper today, the derailment in Graniteville,SC was settled out of court between NS and the town ,I think. No big fuss or trial by either side, so both sides must be satisfied. Can’t recall if total dollar amount was given, but the derailment caused 9 deaths and 250 injuries.

4

Slightly off topic, but if anyone runs across any hint of the cost of the Grainitville, SC settlement, please post it. This has got to be a huge amount. NS must have given a lot to have reached settlement out of court, but they were at a clear disadvantage on this one, no one to blame but themselves. Wonder if they settled with Avondale Mills, who claimed that this event toppled the whole Company, though this was but one of many plants. I think I smell a skunk on that assertion.

Northtowne

5

Proposed Graniteville settlement (The following report appeared on The State website on January 9.)

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Under a class-action settlement given preliminary approval Monday, Norfolk Southern would pay the following amounts to people injured by chlorine exposure in the January 2005 Graniteville train wreck. The payments are in addition to medical costs and lost wages paid by the railroad.

Subclass 1: $20,000 to each person who received medical treatment before Feb. 1, 2005, and who was present within a one-mile radius of the wreck site. Avondale Mills workers each would receive an additional $2,500

Subclass 2: $11,250 to each person who received treatment before Feb. 1, 2005, and who was present within specified areas outside the one-mile radius

Subclass 3: $9,375 to each person who received treatment after Feb. 1, 2005, but before April 6, 2005, and who was present within the one-mile radius

Subclass 4: $17,500 to each emergency responder who received treatment and who was present within the one-mile radius between Jan. 6 and Jan. 11, 2005

Subclass 5: $25,000 to each qualifying person for the first calendar day of hospitalization and $18,750 for each hospitalization day through the sixth day. For the seventh and subsequent days, the daily reimbursement amount would be $25,000. In addition, each qualifying person could receive as much as $93,750 for treatment of “permanent or persistent incident-related pulmonary impairment.”

Subclass 6: Varying amounts to people who were within the one-mile radius and who received treatment for physical symptoms after observing someone who was seriously injured or died.

This is the second class-action lawsuit settled by Norfolk Southern. In 2005, the company settled 1,559 claims for