Power and Brugess pointed out Norfolk Southern’s internal rules require 14-foot track centers after reconstruction, which is more than the state regulation. “Our goal was to make it clear to the jury that these railroads are putting people in jeopardy by not following their own rules,” said Power.

1. 50 May 2016 || Trial JUERGEN BOSSE/GETTY IMAGES
Spotlight
Parsons v. Norfolk S. R.R. Co.
No. 2011-L-009265
(Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. Nov. 20, 2015)
By Ryan Watson
O
n Sept. 2, 2011, Michael Par-
sons, a 30-year-old conductor
for Norfolk Southern Railroad
Co., was reorganizing railroad
cars. The switches in the area
where he was working had been
replaced recently, narrowing the dis-
tance between two previously parallel
tracks. As Parsons was riding on the
side of a rail car, it collided with another
car parked on an adjacent track, shear-
ing off his left heel.
Parsons received a skin graft, but his
heel bone later died and was removed.
He received a larger, bulky skin graft
to cover the wound. He was unable to
put weight on his foot for two years,
and after he began using it again, the
graft tore, resulting in multiple infec-
tions. He likely will experience similar
problems for the rest of his life. The
only permanent solution would be to
amputate his leg below the knee.
Chicago attorneys John Power and
George Brugess represented Parsons in
his suit against Norfolk Southern under
theFederalEmployers’LiabilityAct—the
exclusive remedy for railroad workers
injured on the job. Brugess argued that
therailroadhadcreatedadangerouscon-
dition in the rail yard, and Power argued
that Parsons’s injuries were severe.
After a nine-day trial, the jury
awarded the plaintiff $22.47 million.
This included $19 million for Parsons’s
pain and suffering, $1.5 million for dis-
figurement, $1.5 million in lost benefits
and earnings, and $474,102 for future
medical expenses. The railroad initially
offered only $1 million to settle. “They
never took us seriously,” said Power.
The key issue at trial was twofold—
first, whether Norfolk Southern had
“reconstructed” the rail yard when it
replaced several track switches in the
summer of 2011; and second, what dis-
tance was required between the
previously parallel track centers. At the
time of Parsons’s injury, only 10 feet and
five inches separated the track
centers.
The 51st Street yard was built more
than a century ago with 12-foot track
centers. A state regulation requiring 13
feet and six inches between track cen-
ters was later enacted, but the railroad
argued that the rail yard was grandfa-
thered out of that requirement because
it was built earlier. Under Illinois law,
however, a rail yard loses that protec-
tion if it is reconstructed; then it must
comply with the regulation.
As Power and Brugess pointed out,
Norfolk Southern’s internal rules
require 14-foot track centers after
reconstruction, which is more than the
state regulation. “Our goal was to make
it clear to the jury that these railroads
are putting people in jeopardy by not
following their own rules,” said Power.
Much of the expert testimony
addressed whether the replacement of
track switches constituted reconstruc-
tion of the yard. The court put special
interrogatories before the jury, asking
it to decide whether the replacement
of switches required the railroad to
bring the yard up to code. The jury
answered in the affirmative.
The railroad also argued that it had
designated the area between the two
Our goal was to make it clear to the jury that these railroads are
putting people in jeopardy by not following their own rules.
Railroad Ignored
Its Own Safety Rule
Reprinted with permission of Trial (June 2016)
Copyright American Association for Justice,
Formerly Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA ®)
https://www.justice.org/publications
Reprinted with permission of Trial (June 2016)
Copyright American Association for Justice,
Formerly Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA ®)
https://www.justice.org/publications
Reprinted with permission of Trial (June 2016)
Copyright American Association for Justice,
Formerly Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA ®)
https://www.justice.org/publications

2. Trial || May 2016 51
tracks a “no-parking” zone and that
Parsons created the dangerous condi-
tion by parking rail cars there. If so, his
actions would have been the sole cause
of his injuries. This argument back-
fired—three other conductors testified
that trains were always left in the
claimed no-parking area, and the plain-
tiffs presented dash cam footage show-
ing several train cars were parked in
that area.
On the basis of its no-parking argu-
ment, the railroad requested an alloca-
tion of fault, but the jury found the
railroad 100 percent liable. The video
footage was particularly damning,
Power said, as it directly contradicted
the railroad’s argument and may have
angered the jurors.
The damages case was less compli-
cated—Power said the railroad called
no medical expert and made no serious
arguments about the elements of dam-
ages. “Lawyers often are so stuck on
liability that they push the damages
case to the back burner—not because
they don’t want to argue damages, but
because they really want to establish
liability first,” Power said.
Parsons maintained a positive,
upbeat attitude throughout trial, and
Power is confident that his client will
succeed despite his injuries. All Par-
sons wanted to do was get back to work
on the railroad. “This was his dream
job, and he loved it,” Power said. Power
explained why verdicts like these are
so important. “None of the catastrophi-
cally injured clients I’ve represented
view these jury awards as a win—it’s
about making their lives a bit more
comfortable. For some of them, it’s the
one time in their life they can protect
their families and their livelihoods.”
The railroad has appealed, but Power
is confident that the verdict will sur-
vive. “The judge gave us a good trial,
and he did it right.”
NEED DIRECTION ON
NJ REFERRALS?
Respected, Reliable, Referral Partner
(973) 635-5400
One Main Street • Chatham, NJ 07928
Jersey City • North Bergen • Sea Girt
www.njatty.com
Twelve of our nineteen lawyers are Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as Civil Trial Attorneys,
and as such, are able to pay referral fees without the necessity of your participation pursuant to R:1:39-6(d).
Respected, Reliable, Referral Partner
MILLION DOLLAR ADVOCATES FORUM