To submit your case for possible
publication, go to www.justice.org/
caseform.
to use the pool despite the fact that its
cloudy water posed a safety hazard. Suit
also charged that there were improper
safety standards and a lack of safety
equipment at the pool.
the jury awarded about $3.77 mil-
lion, including $3 million in punitive
damages. the defendants are jointly and
severally liable.
•••••
Citation: Marshall v. King’s Inn, no.
2007-900614 (ala., Montgomery co.
cir. aug. 25, 2009).
plaintiff Counsel:
Josh J. Wright
and aaJ member Steven W. couch,
both of birmingham, alabama.
RAILROADS
career railroad
Worker Suffers
repetitive-Motion
Injuries
DwiGht CoMpton worKeD for
the burlington northern and
Santa fe railroad co. (bnSf)
for more than three decades.
During that time, he performed various
duties, including conducting terminal air
brake tests, using power tools and welding equipment, and preparing surfaces
for painting.
Due to the repetitive nature of these
job tasks, compton suffered a knee
injury, necessitating a knee replace-
ment; shoulder injuries, necessitating
shoulder surgery; and a disk herniation
in his lower back. now 53, he has been
deemed totally disabled by the railroad
retirement board. compton was forced
to leave his job, at which he earned about
$60,000 annually.
compton sued bnSf, alleging it failed
to provide a safe workplace, adequate
training, mechanical assistance, and
sufficient staffing.
assistance to a passenger with a physi-
cal disability, maintain an adequate
public address system, and make proper
announcements on its public address
system.
the plaintiffs made similar claims
against Metra. they alleged that Metra
was liable for failing to communicate
that an eastbound commuter train would
be traveling on the northern track and
place adequate warning signs about the
schedule changes. Moreover, the plain-
tiffs claimed that Metra should have
maintained a proper access ramp for
people with disabilities and installed
barriers to prevent traffic from crossing
in front of an approaching train.
bnSf claimed, among other things,
that eskew was negligent for disregard-
ing warning bells and for proceeding
around a lowered crossing gate.
the jury awarded $5 million, find-
ing bnSf 85 percent liable, Metra 10
percent at fault, and eskew 5 percent
negligent.
•••••
Citation:
Eskew v. Burlington N. &
Santa Fe R.R. Co., no. 06 l 000616
(Ill., cook co. cir. aug. 18, 2009).
plaintiff Counsel: aaJ member
Jay P. Deratany and nathan Polum,
both of chicago.
plaintiff experts:
James Sottile,
trains and railroads, north Palm
beach, florida; Kenric Van Wyc,
mechanical engineering and acoustics,
Hudsonville, Michigan; Daniel
J. Melcher, civil engineering and
transportation, chicago; arnold D.
curnyn, ophthalmology, arlington
Heights, Illinois; and Matthew Hseih,
family medicine, berwyn, Illinois.
Defense experts: clayton Weaver,
civil engineering and transportation,
Wilmette, Illinois; brian P. Heikkila,
railroads, Sacramento, california;
and bernard l. Morris, railroad
safety, Sherman, Illinois.
the jury awarded $2 million.
•••••
Citation:
Compton v. Burlington N. &
Santa Fe R. R. Co., no. 07-cV-328-tcK
(n.D. okla. June 22, 2009).
plaintiff Counsel: James e.
Hopkins Jr. and andrew c. baebler,
both of St. louis.
Visually Impaired
commuter
Struck by train
SCott esKew, who was legally
blind, was standing on the north-
ern platform of a train station.
after hearing an announcement
that travelers could cross the tracks,
eskew went around a safety gate and
crossed over the northern platform in an
attempt to get to the southern platform.
as he did so, he was struck and killed by
an eastbound commuter train operated
by the northeast Illinois regional com-
muter railroad corp. (Metra), which was
traveling on the northern track.
eskew, who had worked for an art
institute, is survived by his wife.
eskew’s brother and mother-in-law,
as co-administrators of his estate, sued
the burlington northern and Santa fe
railroad co. (bnSf), which owned the
railroad. the plaintiffs alleged that bnSf
failed to communicate that the train that
struck eskew would be traveling on the
northern track rather than its normally
scheduled southern track, sound the
train’s horn or whistle, stop the train
when it knew passengers were crossing
the tracks, implement adequate com-
munications policies regarding schedule
changes, and install proper barriers to
prevent pedestrians from crossing the
tracks.
the plaintiffs also claimed that bnSf
breached its duty as a common carrier
in that it failed to provide adequate
