JANUARY 18, 2012
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMS
$1.2 MILLION JURY AWARD
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed a jury’s award of $1.2
million in a lawsuit brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability
Act (“FELA”), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60, in Dalka v. Wisconsin Central,
Ltd., ___ WI APP ___, ___ Wis.2d___, ___ N.W.2d ___. After five
days of trial, the jury returned the verdict after deliberating for
45 minutes. The underlying facts of the case involved the
plaintiff, Bruce Dalka, working as a conductor for Wisconsin Central
at its yards in North Fond du Lac, Wisconsin during the evening of
June 15, 2005. Dalka was part of a switch crew at the yards. While
performing his job, Dalka noticed a fast moving motor vehicle turn
off a public street into the yard. He immediately radioed a
supervisor located in a yard tower to notify him of the trespasser.
Dalka monitored the situation while on the ground and reported the
vehicle’s movement to the tower.
While
monitoring the vehicle, the vehicle came straight at Dalka, and as
he retreated he tripped. Dalka fell hard but got up immediately, and
with the help of his coworker and engineer, they pulled the driver
out of the vehicle after it crashed into a pile of rails. Dalka and
his coworker controlled the driver until the police came. The
driver was intoxicated.
The vehicle in
question was stolen from the yard’s parking lot. The lot was located
next to the yard tower, and had no parking attendant, gate or access
control. The vehicle was owned by a woman employed by a company
under contract with Wisconsin Central to transport train crews in
the yard. The owner had left the keys in a cup holder in the
vehicle.
As a result of
the incident, Dalka injured his low back, which resulted in five
separate surgeries.
Randal
W. LeNeave of the firm tried the
case, and the jury returned a verdict where it found Wisconsin
Central 100% at fault, and awarded $1,194,000 in damages.
After the trial
court denied Wisconsin Central’s post-trial motions, the railroad
appealed the case and asked the appellate court to review several
issues. The main issue asserted by Wisconsin Central was the
contention that the trial court erred when it denied the railroad’s
multiple motions brought before, during and at the end of trial that
there was insufficient evidence to establish a FELA violation and to
submit the case to the jury. Specifically, Wisconsin Central argued
there was insufficient evidence to establish that it was reasonably
foreseeable that a trespasser would come onto its property, steal a
vehicle out of its parking lot, drive the vehicle in its yard and
injure one of its employees. Applying well-established FELA law, the
appellate court held there was sufficient evidence introduced
by Dalka establishing foreseeability. The evidence the court relied
on included prior complaints related to trespassers coming into the
yard, and Wisconsin Central’s own brochures and policies that
discussed the problem of trespassers coming onto the property. The
evidence also established that Wisconsin Central had no policies in
place to secure the yard other then telling its employees to report
trespassers to supervisors after they were on the property.
Wisconsin
Central’s primary argument concerning foreseeability was based on an
extremely narrow reading of a 1947 United States Supreme Court
decision. The court rejected the argument. Had the appellate court
accepted Wisconsin Central’s argument, FELA’s special provisions
would have been seriously weakened. The special provisions
contained in the FELA derive from Congress’ intent in passing the
FELA, which included
providing injured railroad workers with a broad remedy when injured
on the job. Courts looking at the FELA, including the United States
Supreme Court, have interpreted the federal statute in a manner
consistent with Congress’ intent. By rejecting Wisconsin Central’s
argument related to foreseeability, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals’
decision in Dalka keeps the FELA a strong federal statute
providing protection to injured railroad workers.
*All court
submissions and briefs were authored by
Richard L. Carlson of the
firm.
.
PRINTABLE
VERSION >
Court of Appeals Decision 01_18_12.PDF
ABOUT THE LAWYERS
.