The results below are jury verdicts. They do not include millions of dollars in settlements procured on behalf of our clients over the same time frame.

Click on the cases below for short descriptions.

Batty v. BNSF, $2,376,911 Plaintiff was injured when he slipped on an unknown “Armor All-like” substance on the floor of a locomotive cab. He suffered low back injuries and was disabled from engine service. At the time of trial he was in college to become a public school teacher. Over half of the verdict was for past and future pain and suffering. HIGHLIGHT: Contrary to the testimony of BNSF’s own managers, BNSF hired an expert to testify that the slippery substance had nothing to do with plaintiff’s fall. When asked if his opinion would change if the floor of the locomotive was made of Teflon and covered with cooking oil, he said “no.” December 2007

Montgomery v. BNSF, $1,321,552 Plaintiff was injured when he fell on mainline ballast after the train went into an undesired emergency due to a broken knuckle. A lawsuit was filed under FELA negligence, violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and violation of California walkway standards. Plaintiff, a new hire, was instructed to tie 40-handbrakes and walk the track in the middle of the night with poor lighting, terrible footing, and no prior experience. Plaintiff had shoulder and low back surgery. HIGHLIGHT: When asked why he did not walk over and take pictures on the side of the track where the injury occurred, a manager answered, "it's too dangerous." November 2005

Duenez v. Amtrak, $965,687 Plaintiff alleges injury when he fell off a bench inside a trailer that was serving as a locker/shift room. The trailer was caused to jerk when another employee slammed an electric cart into a structure next to the building. Plaintiff had back surgery. The jury was unconvinced by any of defendant's 29-hours of surveillance which cost Amtrak $84,000. October 2005

Dickinson v. UPRR, $2,213,258 Plaintiff was injured when the rung of a side ladder on a boxcar broke while he was riding a pull out of a yard track. Plaintiff had two shoulder surgeries (successful) and low back surgery. The case was brought under a violation of the Safety Appliance Act. August 2005

Richardson v. BNSF, $1,575,383 Plaintiff was injured when a yard switch in Los Angeles unexpectedly hung up. Plaintiff had neck and shoulder surgeries and was permanently disabled. Defendants expensive experts testified that plaintiff could not have been injured in the manner she described. The jury saw through defendant's smoke and mirrors. December 2004

Johnson v. Amtrak, $953,365 Plaintiff was injured when a switch hung up during a routine move in Union Pacific's Sacramento yard. Again, hours of survellance costing tens of thousands of dollars proved nothing to the jury. October 2004

Libro v. UPRR, $2,500,000 Plaintiff was injured attempting to throw a switch which had been spiked, but not tagged or locked out. The reason plaintiff threw the switch was to set out a car which had a broken brake pipe support. Plaintiff's counsel was successful in arguing that the brake pipe support defect was a violation of the Safety Appliance Act and, despite the fact that 30-min. to 45-min. had passed when plaintiff was throwing the switch, he was still under the protection of the Safety Appliance Act. Plaintiff suffered a low back injury resulting in several surgeries. February 2004

Ashbee v. BNSF, $1,826,000 Plaintiff was injured when he was directed to pull power out of a siding near Edwards, CA. In order to take the power out of the track, he had to throw a switch which was spiked, but neither tagged nor locked out. BNSF denied having worked on the switch despite the fact that witnesses testified that a maintenance-of-way crew had been working in the exact same area the day before. The jurors were unconvinced by the railroad's argument that vandals or passersby spiked the switch. December 2003

Ruiz v. UPRR, $495,000 Plaintiff, an engineer for the UPRR, suffered high frequency neurosensorial hearing loss and tinnitus which required biofeedback treatment. April 2003

Alley v. UPRR, $700,000 Plaintiff settled a case directly with the claims department for hearing loss in 1992. Plaintiff was able to establish that the Southern Pacific, and then the Union Pacific, were negligent for failing to monitor potential deterioration of his hearing loss and provide custom-fitted hearing protection. As a consequence, plaintiff suffered further hearing loss which eventually disabled him from railroad work. The verdict was reduced to $488,000 due to a finding of comparative negligence. March 2003