Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a circuit court's ruling regarding the venue in a railroad employee's personal injury lawsuit. While the railroad company had wanted to transfer the case to Mississippi, the Illinois courts supported the plaintiff's choice of Illinois as the case's venue. Fennell v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 2012 WL 19455 (Ill.App.2012).

The plaintiff, Walter Fennell, had been working for Illinois Central Railroad Company for over 35 years. In 2009, Fennell filed a Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) lawsuit against Illinois Central Railroad. The FELA lawsuit alleged that Fennell was exposed to asbestos, diesel exhaust, environmental tobacco smoke, sand, and toxic fumes, dust, and gases during the tenure of his employment, which in turn resulted in Fennell's current respiratory problems. Fennell was seeking compensation for the health problems he allegedly developed during the course of his employment with Illinois Central.

Shortly after Fennell was filed, Illinois Central sought to have the case dismissed under the doctrine of interstate forum non conveniens, which is a legal doctrine that allows a court to deny its jurisdiction if it finds that a different forum would be more convenient and more equitable. The defendant railroad argued that Mississippi would be a more convenient and fair location on the grounds that Fennell himself lived in Mississippi, that Fennell had worked in Mississippi for the majority of his career, and because the alleged injury likely occurred in Mississippi. However, the trial court denied the defendant's motion and affirmed Illinois's jurisdiction in the case; the defendants appealed this decision.

Continue reading "Illinois Retains Jurisdiction Despite Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Inconvenient Forum - Fennell v. Illinois Central Railroad Company" »

A Chicago jury awarded a train engineer damages for an injury he sustained while operating a Metra train; Clarence Hatchett v. Metra, 09 L 5185. The award came after a Cook County injury trial in which the railroad attempted to prove the train engineer was at fault for his own injury, a theory that the jury seemed to agree with - it apportioned 70% of the train accident to the engineer.

The train injury took place in January 2009, while the plaintiff, Clarence Hatchett, was employed by Metra Rail. Hatchett was about to depart from Chicago's Union Station on Metra's Milwaukee District North Central Line when he did what many driver's do before departing- he tried to adjust his engineer's seat.

At the Cook County trial Hatchett explained that he determines his seat back position based on his ability to easily reach the automatic break. However, Hatchett was unable to reach his ideal seat position because the seat back was stuck in a forward position, leaving him roughly six inches further forward than he would have liked. However, Hatchett made no further attempts to adjust the stuck train seat and departed from Union Station.

As Hatchett's train approached the line's track crossovers located near Franklin Park, he needed to reach back to apply the automatic break. As he did so, Hatchett heard a loud pop and felt immediate pain in his left shoulder. A later diagnosis revealed that Hatchett had sustained from a torn tendon in his left rotator cuff, for which he would require a total shoulder replacement.

Despite the prior existence of Grade III and Grade IV shoulder injuries, Hatchett attributed the rotator cuff tear to the pop he heard while reaching for the automatic break. He brought a FELA lawsuit against his employer, Metra, for the medical bills related to the injury, his lost time from work, and general pain and suffering.

Continue reading "Train Engineer Receives Jury Verdict for Injury to Shoulder While Applying Train Brake - Hatchett v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corp." »

A recent Cook County personal injury lawsuit involving a railway worker who was injured at work exemplifies many of the typical components for worksite injury lawsuits. Not only were there several defendants involved whom the injured worker held responsible for his work injury, but the defendants alleged that the railroad worker was actually responsible for his own injury. It was up to the jury in James Barnicle v. Belt Railway Company of Chicago, 06 L 1325, to decide who was at fault for the railroad accident.

In order to determine who was at fault, the jury must first examine the case facts. At the time of the work accident, 48 year-old James Barnicle was working as a railroad switchman for The Belt Railway Company of Chicago. His duties involved switching railcars traveling in and out of the Exxon Mobil plant located off Cicero Avenue. However, as he was engaging a track switch, it unexpectedly jerked towards him, causing an injury to his lumbar spine.

Barnicle claimed that the specific track switch was defective and that Exxon Mobil had prior notice of this defect. Plaintiff's lawyers attempted to establish the prior notice by submitting evidence that other employees had reported that the switch was difficult to operate and in need of repair. The idea being that if the jury believed that Exxon knew that the track switch was defective, but did nothing to repair the switch, then Exxon would be responsible for the plaintiff's injuries.

Continue reading "Cook County Railroad Employee Awarded $1.26 Million for Defective Track Switch Injury - Barnicle v. Belt Railway Company of Chicago" »

An Illinois Appellate Court was asked to evaluate whether a trial judge correctly adjusted a Cook County jury's verdict in a Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) lawsuit. The jury had originally reduced the plaintiff's award by 40% for what it determined was his contributory negligence; however, the trial judge later ruled that contributory negligence did not apply because of the unique circumstances of the lawsuit. The appellate court agreed with the trial judge, backing up his decision to restore the original $500,000 verdict to the plaintiff in Harry Balough v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation, etc., No. 1-09-3053.

The original FELA lawsuit was brought after Balough, a locomotive driver, became injured in a Chicago rail yard. Balough was boarding an engine to prepare the trains for service when a trapdoor he was standing on gave way, hitting Balough on his head. Prior to stepping onto the trapdoor Balough testified that he had followed the railroad's rules regarding trapdoor use by first giving the door a horizontal tug prior to boarding. Balough further testified that when he did so the latched seemed firmly latched.

Yet, the trapdoor still failed, causing Balough to require stitches to his head. In addition, shortly after returning to work after the train accident, Balough began suffering from blurred vision and migraine headaches. He continues to experience both of these symptoms on a regular basis and has since been removed from his position as a locomotive driver and placed on permanent disability.

Continue reading "Illinois Court Rules Train "In Use" and Contributory Negligence Does Not Apply - $500,000 Verdict in Balough v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation" »

A recent Illinois jury verdict against a railroad company illustrates the difference between Federal Employee Liability Act (FELA) claims and Illinois workers' compensation claims. The plaintiff was a railroad conductor who suffered severe injuries after being run over by a railroad car while working. As a result of the Illinois train accident the plaintiff required amputations of both his legs.

If the plaintiff had been working for a construction company instead of a railroad company, than his injury would have been handled by the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission (IWCC) and he would have received immediate payments for his injury, medical care, and lost time from work. However, railroad employee injuries are covered under FELA, which puts the burden on the employee to prove that the injury was the result of the railroad's negligence and not the employees.

Similarly, employers whose employees are ruled by Illinois workers' compensation law are exempt from any lawsuits being filed against them by their employees as the result of an injury sustained at work. This protection is granted to those companies because of the assumption that if their employee is injured at work then the company will already be paying them under Illinois workers' compensation rules.

However, under FELA, the railroads do not have to pay the employee anything if the company deems that the injury was a result of the employee's negligence. So while the employee does not automatically receive any compensation from the railroad, the employee is also not barred from filing a lawsuit directly against their railroad employer. So while this Illinois train accident lawsuit was brought by a railroad employee against his railroad employer, Iowa Interstate Railroad, if the plaintiff had not been employed by a railroad he would not have been able to sue his employer.

Continue reading "Illinois Railroad Injury Verdict: FELA Claims Are Different Than Workers' Compensation Claims" »

In Fletcher v. Chicago Rail Link, LLC, No. 08-1609, a recent Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA) case, a plaintiff's award was reduced by 50% after the U.S. Court of Appeals determined that the District Court had erred by not factoring in plaintiff's liability.

Fletcher was an employee of the defendant, Chicago Rail Link, LLC (CRL), who was injured when the company-owned sports utility vehicle (SUV) he was driving collided with another vehicle within the railroad yard. The injured plaintiff sued his employer under provisions of the FELA claiming that the accident was caused by the railroad’s failure to maintain the SUV in a safe condition, or to warn him that the SUV was unsafe.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of $700,000 and found that the plaintiff was 50% responsible for the accident. Typically when both parties are found to be liable for the injury the amount of the verdict awarded is reduced by the percentage of plaintiff liability. However, in Fletcher the jury award was not reduced and remained at $700,000.

The exception to the reduction of the judgment was based upon an Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) provision that requires railroad company motor vehicles used by employees are maintained in a safe condition. Therefore, the Illinois District Court found that CRL's failure to safely maintain the SUV that Fletcher was operating classified as an exception under 45 U.S.C. §54(a) and negated the requirement to reduce the verdict.

Continue reading "Illinois Work Accident Plaintiff Damages in Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA) Case Reduced By Illinois Federal Court" »

Chicago area Metra worker Leonard Brzinski was denied recovery for injuries he suffered after falling into a sinkhole while working. Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), a train company employee can bring suit for injuries suffered on the job due to the employer's negligence.

Brzinski arrived at work in Orland Park, Illinois, to investigate an accident. He was walking along the service road that ran parallel to the railroad tracks for the purpose of taking photographs. While he was walking, the ground gave way and Mr. Brzinski stepped into an 18-inch sinkhole with his left foot and injured himself.

Brzinski filed suit against Metra seeking recovery for his injuries. The defendant, Metra, filed a motion for summary judgment stating (1) Leonard was not one of the employees statutorily allowed to recover under FELA and (2) that Metra had no actual or constructive notice of the sinkhole that caused the injury.

The trial court granted Metra's motion on the second argument- that Leonard failed to establish that Metra was or should have been on notice of the sinkhole defect. Therefore Metra was not responsible for Brzinski's injuries.

Brzinski appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, who affirmed the decision of the trial court. The appeals court further stated that their decision was partly because of the consequences that would occur if they did side with the plaintiff despite his lack of proof. Namely, that every railroad would be liable for damages to an employee who was injured while working for them whether it was due to the railroad's negligence or not. The court did not feel this was the intention of the FELA statute.

Continue reading "Chicago Metra Worker Denied FELA Recovery For Injuries Due to Lack Of Notice" »