FELA Lawsuit: Norfolk Southern Railway Co. Faces $15M Verdict for Negligence in Locomotive Collision

The injuries disrupted his ability to live a normal life, incurred substantial medical expenses, and caused him to lose wages. He also experienced additional damages supported by the evidence and permitted under the law.

Hardy attributed these harms to the negligent and unlawful actions or omissions of Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSRC). He argued that NSRC’s failure to ensure a safe working environment and comply with its responsibilities directly contributed to his injuries and losses.

As a result, Hardy seeks compensatory damages against NSRC in an amount sufficient to meet this court’s jurisdictional requirements. Additionally, he requests any further compensation the court and jury deem appropriate, along with the costs incurred from pursuing this lawsuit.

At the time of the incident, Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSRC), through its actions and those of its authorized agents, acted negligently. This negligence directly caused, in whole or in part, the injuries suffered by Glenford Hardy.

NSRC failed to provide Hardy with a reasonably safe workplace, violating its duty of care. It did not ensure point protection for the moving train that collided with Hardy’s train. Furthermore, NSRC failed to follow its own operating rules regarding point protection for movements within the Elkhart yard.

The company also directed a train onto a track already occupied by Hardy’s locomotive and crew, creating a hazardous situation. Additionally, NSRC did not provide adequate radio communication between crews, further increasing the risk of miscommunication and accidents.

NSRC failed to comply with critical safety regulations under 49 C.F.R. Part 218.99, which governs shoving or pushing movements, and 49 C.F.R. Part 220.49, which addresses radio communication for such movements.

The yardmaster on duty, an authorized NSRC agent, failed to properly control train movements within the yard. Another NSRC agent, the conductor responsible for providing point protection during a shoving movement, failed to meet this obligation. Finally, the conductor of the train that collided with Hardy’s locomotive failed to stop to prevent the collision.

These acts of negligence collectively contributed to the injuries Hardy sustained, underscoring NSRC’s failure to uphold its responsibility to maintain a safe working environment and comply with essential safety regulations.

In its first defense, Norfolk Southern argued that Hardy’s complaint failed to establish a valid legal claim and should be dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, the company denied all allegations not explicitly admitted in its response.

Norfolk Southern’s fourth defense claimed that Hardy’s injuries and damages resulted from unforeseeable, intervening causes beyond its control. Therefore, it argued that it should not be held responsible.

In its fifth defense, the company alleged that Hardy’s own contributory negligence played a role in the incident, warranting a reduction in any damages awarded. Norfolk Southern’s sixth defense suggested that pre-existing conditions or other concurrent factors contributed to Hardy’s injuries, further diminishing its liability.

The seventh defense asserted that Hardy may not have taken reasonable steps to mitigate his damages, potentially reducing his claims. In its eighth defense, Norfolk Southern argued for a set-off of any damages by accounting for benefits already received by Hardy, such as sick pay, medical bills, or Railroad Retirement Board benefits.

The ninth and tenth defenses raised procedural barriers, claiming that some or all of Hardy’s claims might be barred by federal preemption, res judicata, or claim-splitting doctrines.