Articles Posted in FELA

by

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

by

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