|
Confidential settlement of $4,000,000.00 for female conductor who sustained massive degloving injuries to buttocks and a severely crushed pelvis when she was pinned and rolled between side of railroad car and wall of coal dumper building.
On April 21, 2006, Plaintiff, a 56 year-old railroad employee with eleven years of service was working as a conductor for Defendant railroad and was assigned the task of taking a train consisting of two locomotives and 103 loaded coal cars and placing the cars to be dumped and the coal eventually loaded onto barges.
The plaintiff received her instructions from the dispatcher and was instructed to perform a shove movement going south towards the coal dumping location. The engineer was on the locomotives and Plaintiff was required to be on the leading car of the train as it was being shoved southward. Communication was by radio. As the train proceeded toward the unloading facility, Plaintiff gave the engineer a car countdown and told the engineer to stop the train. The engineer failed to stop the train and as a result, the train continued about 150 feet into the dumper building and Plaintiff was caught between the side of the railroad car she was riding and the wall of the unloading facility. As a result, Plaintiff was severely injured and is now permanently disabled.
It was Plaintiff's contention that she was injured due to the Defendant's violation of the Federal Employers' Liability Act. The Defendant failed to provide the plaintiff with a reasonably safe place to work. Specifically the Defendant violated NORAC Operating Rule 711 and 49 CFR Part 220, §220.49. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff was riding the leading end of the train movement as required by NORAC Operating Rule 116. She was using the radio to communicate with her engineer and she was specifying the distance to be moved and when to stop. It was Plaintiff's contention that the engineer failed to properly control the speed of the train and he continued operating after a stop command was given. It was Plaintiff's contention that the incident was caused by the failure of the engineer to properly use the automatic brake valve to control the train. Defendant contended the Plaintiff had the option of doing a pull move and riding inside the engine but she decided not to pull the cars into the dumper and decided on a shove move. The Defendant railroad took the position that the accident was the sole cause of the Plaintiff Conductor in failing to properly control the speed of the train and failing to properly direct the engineer to stop the train (dump the air). The Defendant's experts who performed an engineering and train handling study of the accident were also of the opinion that the Plaintiff had 27 seconds to get off the train (from the time she gave the stop command) which was slowing from 5 mph to 2 mph when it eventually entered the building and close clearance area. The experts for the railroad were also of the opinion that Plaintiff could have climbed the side ladder of the car she was riding and avoided the close clearance.
Plaintiff countered the argument by saying Plaintiff was never instructed on how to get off moving equipment and to the contrary the railroad has a rule not to get off moving equipment except in an emergency.
Defendant also contended that since the Plaintiff had worked this particular job on other occasions, she was aware of the close clearance, was aware of the signs warning of the clearance and simply failed to properly observe and control the speed, stopping distances and movement of the train to avoid the known danger.
Plaintiff sustained significant multiple trauma including, but not limited to, a severe crush injury to the pelvis, extensive fractures, massive soft tissue degloving injury involving her buttock, lateral flanks and back. Plaintiff has a colostomy which has not been reversed. These injuries have effected Plaintiff' functional levels and have required prolonged hospitalizations, rehabilitative care and a need for medical and supportive services since the accident and into the future.
Immediately from the scene Plaintiff was medivaced to a Class I trauma center. She was conscious during the majority of this time. Plaintiff was an inpatient from April 21, 2006 through June 20, 2006. She was then admitted to a specialty hospital from June 20, 2006 through July 21, 2006. She was then at the a skilled nursing facility from July 21, 2006 through December 15, 2006.
Plaintiff was again hospitalized from May 18, 2008, through May 27, 2008, because of a severe infection that developed because of an open sore on her back in the area of the degloving injury. The infection went into her hip. She was then transferred again to a skilled nursing facility from May 27, 2008 through July 6, 2008.
In addition to the treatment for the severe physical injuries Plaintiff has received psychological care for her depressive disorder as a result of the effects of the massive trauma she sustained. Plaintiff will never be able to walk without a walker and prolonged walking will never be possible.
During 2005, the year prior to Plaintiff' injury, she earned approximately $62,000.00. Plaintiff' past net lost wages were approximately $150,000.00. Plaintiff planned on working to a minimum of age 66 and therefore would have sustained a future wage loss reduced to present value of approximately $628,000.00 to $680,000.00.
Plaintiff will require periodic ongoing medical and supportive serves throughout her lifetime.
The Defendant railroad had paid all past medical expenses and those were not an item of damages. The Defendant did not contest the extent of the injuries but their vocational expert was of the opinion she could be employed in a light/sedentary job and earn about $20,000.00 to $30,000.00 per year and her future wage loss was less than $400,000.00.
The case settled for $4,000,000.00 as jury selection was to begin. The names of Plaintiff and Defendant's experts will not be disclosed because of the confidential settlement nor will the names of Defendant's counsel.
Mitchell A. Kaye, Esquire, of Coffey Kaye Myers & Olley was counsel for Plaintiff.
BACK
|
