This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury
FELA
Locomotive Inspection Act

Burley D. Tompkins v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Published: Feb. 20, 2016 | Result Date: Sep. 14, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:12-cv-01481-CMK Verdict –  Defense

Court

USDC Eastern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Anthony S. Petru
(Hildebrand, McLeod & Nelson LLP)


Defendant

Mariel Covarrubias
(Murphy Campbell Alliston & Quinn)

Stephanie L. Quinn
(Murphy, Campbell, Alliston & Quinn)


Facts

Burley Tompkins sued Union Pacific Railroad Co., in connection with an alleged railroad accident that occurred in June 2011.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff was a train engineer for defendant, while making his second trip back an emergency stop occurred. The emergency stop caused a slack action, causing him to be thrown around inside the car. Consequently, he injured his spine, requiring surgeries. Plaintiff also alleged a prior incident that occurred in 1998 in the rail yard, but failed to report because his manager threatened to fire him.

Plaintiff sued defendant for alleged violations of the Federal Employer's Liability Act, the Locomotive Inspection Act, and the Safety Appliance Act, as well as violations of federal regulations. Plaintiff alleged defendant failed to provide a reasonably safe workplace. Plaintiff also claimed there was a defect in the train that caused it to stop suddenly.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant claimed the train stopped due to an unforeseen anomaly. The emergency braking was a safety precaution and that there was no evidence of any federal law violation. Defendant disputed plaintiff's claimed injuries.

Injuries

Tompkins injured his spine, which required a lumbar fusion and other procedures. Tompkins claimed he could no longer work. Defendant contended that plaintiff's back condition was the result of preexisting injuries, including an off duty gym accident that occurred in April 2010.

Result

The court dismissed Tompkins's 1998 incident and the matter went to trial only as to the 2011 incident. The jury ultimately rendered a defense verdict.

Other Information

FILING DATE: June 1, 2012.


#102140

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390