UP loses law suit for 11.7 against them because they "couldn't stop"

[Anonymous]

the train, so they must change the laws of physics according to this crazy Jury. UP has apprealed.

Colorado jury sends $11.7 million message; UP will appeal verdict

Jurors in the case of Missy Martin v. Union Pacific Railroad sent an $11.7 million message to UP after five hours of deliberation Thursday, awarding the Martin family damages well in excess of the requested $6 million.

Martin, who was 16 when her car was struck by a train at the crossing of Fifth and Front streets in Castle Rock, Colorado on Nov12, 2002, has brain damage and is partially paralyzed. She and her parents, Dave and Becky Martin, sued UP for damages and loss from injuries as well as punitive damages.

Sitting in a courtroom at the Robert A. Christensen Justice Center, Martin and her parents wiped away tears as the verdict, which found UP liable for her injuries and future losses, was submitted to judge Paul King.

The jury found that not only should defendant Dannie Dolan and his employer, UP, have known about the danger Martin's car posed while it was stalled in the railroad crossing, but the train crew also failed to exercise reasonable care in avoiding the accident.

Included in the verdict for Missy Martin, now 19, and her parents, David and Rebecca Martin:

$150,000 for non-economic loss.
$6,647,200 for economic loss.
$350,000 for physical impairment loss.
$615,714 in loss to David and Rebecca Martin.
$4 million in punitive damages.
Martin, now 19, said the impending decision weighed on her mind all day, and after many tears, she resigned herself to whatever decision the jury made.
"It was out of my hands," she said. "I did what I could do, and I couldn't worry anymore."

After the verdict was read, the Martin family shared hugs, handshakes and tears, and made plans for a quiet night at home to celebrate, Dave Martin said.
Missy, however, had other plans.

"I think we should do some hard-core partying," she said, laughing as she leaned on her attorney, Bob Schuetze.

UP will appeal the verdict, said attorney Steven Napper.

"I'm disappointed, obviously," Napper said about the verdict before leaving the courthouse.

Dave Martin said the multi-million dollar verdict should send a clear message to the railroad that its failure to stop before hitting Martin's car is unacceptable.

"If you're gonna make a mistake, at least come to the table," he said. "She's not gonna get back to normal, and it kills me. It's going to be a long, hard road for Missy in the future."

Missy Martin, however, said the verdict and award will make it possible for her to have a life and a future. - Megan Fromm, The Douglas County News-Press, courtesy Larry W. Grant

[gabe]

I smell a rat. There has got to be more to this.

Gabe

[edblysard]

More than just one...

And why was the car "stalled" on the tracks?

Ed

[The Block House]

Some questions come to mind. First how fast was the train going, was it within the allowable speed limits? Second what was the weight of the train? Third what was the site distance along that section of track? Fourth was the crossing protected and were the crossing signals working? Fith how long had the stalled car ben on the track? All these questions and answers were left out of the artical

[Anonymous]

And if the car was stalled, and the family's attorney claims the train had time to stop, why didn't Ms Martin have time to get out of her car?

The end result will be the autos win again. All trains will stop for traffic lights to be installed at grade crossings. It should only take 3 weeks for the hot shot freight to go cross country.

Mitch

[tree68]

dcnewspress.com/ For the full story, as reported by the local paper.

Never mind testimony indicating that her boyfriend at the time may have actually pushed her into the path of the train. There is also the suggestion that marks on the roof of the car were from the crossing gates. Now, unless that crossing has 4 quadrant gates, and assuming that the marks were from the gates, that means she was pushed through gates that were already down.

There was some question of whether she might have been missed entirely if she hadn't been pushed.

The engineer's braking procedures were called into question, but there was also testimony indicating that, given the car occupying the crossing, it would have been hit anyhow...

[Anonymous]

The case was covered pretty extensively by the Colorado press, and the crossing in Castle Rock has been controversial before the wreck.
Some pople love to believe that juries are somehow rounded up from among the insane - after hearing a one-sentence synopsis of the case.
In this one, testimony made clear that Union Pacific had plenty of reason to regard this as a particularly dangerous crossing long before this accident. And the train crew saw the car stalled plenty early enough to stop. The engineer testified that he thought the car, while close, was clear of the tracks, so he basically saw no need to stop.
I wasn't on the jury, and don't know how I would have gone if I had heard everything they did. But there was certainly enough there for reasonable people to question the UP's liability.

Larry

[Anonymous]

so a loaded train has time to stop. That makes sense. I have been in one of those wrecks when I was on the starlight from LA years ago, We were going 60 MPH around the Colesium area in Oakland and they went around the tracks, the train had no time to stop, and that was a passanger which is far easier with less momentum built of than a freight. Sometimes, you just have to thank your lucky stars that you weren't killed and call it even. (those poor people on the train on was on didn't get that chance)
Brad

[Junctionfan]

Not knowing the full story, one might state without the whole story that the jurors and the court system like to indulge in cheap drugs and possibly alcoholic beverages..........

Luckily I know better and will just say....hmmmmmmmmmmm...interesting.

[chad thomas]

[banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead]

[Anonymous]

WELL I HATE TO SAY THIS BUT.....DEAD PEOPLE CANT SUE AND IF THIS CONTRY IS REALLY OFF CENTERED.WITH THE RECENT COURT RULINGS WERE ANY ONE CAN CLAM YOUR HOUSE EVEN IF YOU DONT WANT TO SELL TO PUT A WALMART SOME THINGS HAVE TO CHANGE .. THATS JUST MY POINT OF VIEW..ONCE AGAIN IF IT WAS ME AND HAD HAZARDOUS MAT. ON MY TRAIN I WOULD SAVE MY SELF AND THE CITY OR TOWN I WAS PASSING THRU. PEOPLE DONT KNOW WHAT,HAPPENS WHEN A TRAIN GOES IN A EMERGENCY BRAKE APP.

[txcracker]

So just how does a car become "stalled" on a railroad track? I am always moving when I cross one and have never stalled. Come to think of it, I haven't "stalled" anywhere else either.

However, when I was a kid, my next door neighbor "stalled" two cars on railroad tracks. He received nice insurance settlements for both. He was smart enough to get out of the cars, which apparently this girl wasn't.

"I think we should do some hard-core partying," she said, laughing as she leaned on her attorney, Bob Schuetze.

This statement just about sums up the situation.

[CopCarSS]

I would dearly like to see the UP counter-sue the boyfriend. He rear-ended Missy's car onto the tracks. Apparently, he was trying to push it off the tracks, but only managed to get it further onto the tracks.

There's a fly-over at the crossing in question now, so there shouldn't be any more cases like this at that intersection, but I'm sure there will be another at another location. I was really hoping this one wouldn't have a chance, but apparently yet again I seem to be out of the mainstream. Heaven help anyone accept responsibilty for their actions or use common sense anymore.

[banghead][banghead][banghead]

[txhighballer]

If I set the brakes everytime I saw an auto close to the tracks I would never get out of town! Not knowing all the details,I'm assuming the engineer saw the car close to the tracks,and whistled at the crossing and the close clearance auto. When it became obvious that the car was gong to be hit by the train,he took the actions necessary to stop his train,the same actions 99.9% of all engineers would use in that situation.
This verdict shows that juries who are presented with such"sob stories" are more interested in punishing the railroad than in persuing the truth. I'm glad the Union Pacific is appealing the verdict.and they should countersue the boyfriend and the parents for emotional distress suffered by the engineer and conductor on that train.

[gabe]

I don't necessarily disagree with what about all of your conclusions about the verdict's propriety. But:

(1) Studies show that--assuming the jury acted irrationally--they did so out of compassion for the girl, not hatred for UP. We might have all have acted differently than that jury, but it is difficult to look a girl of that age in the eye and pass up the chance to help her. Yes, I know, if they are feeling that compassionate, they should take money out of their own wallet, not UP's.

(2) I don't think the claim was that the engineer could have stopped in time. I think the claim was that, had the engineer braked, it might have given the girl the added two or three seconds that might have made a difference.

(3) As UP obviously argued that the accident was the young man's fault for pushing her into the path of the train at trail, it will be unable to counter sue him--as they have already litigated this claim and lost.

Nonetheless, I still agree with everyone's analysis.

Gabe

[jeaton]

I think this case is another good reason for the installation video cameras on locomotives.

It appears to me that the jury decided that the UP engineer should have applied breaks as soon as he saw the car. From the report, the car would be visable from the engine at 1200 feet (almost a quarter mile) from the crossing. However, it also sound like the engine crew initially thought the car was in the clear, and didn't react until the boyfriend pushed the car on the tracks. What I did not see in the newspaper report was any information on train speed or best case braking distance. Way to many questions unanswered for me to come to a conclusion on this one.

So the jury decided "If they see you in time the train can stop, and if they don't stop you can sue. (Or, your family can sue on your behalf and get you that big headstone you have always wanted).

Jay

[bbrant]

Better get them brakes fixed. After all, aren't trains supposed to be able to stop on a dime?

I've heard of cars that have stalled on the tracks. In fact, way back when I was studying for my drivers test they discussed how you're supposed to get the heck out of the car, no matter if a train is in sight, if your car stops while crossing the tracks.

Perhaps this girl missed that class. Or perhaps they're now teaching you that if your car stalls on the tracks, make sure you have a good lawyer.

[Anonymous]

you are right sometihing is not right here, if i got stalled on the tracks i would get the heck out of there as fast i could and i would call the sherieffs department and tell them to warn the railroad. Anyone in there right mind would not sit in a veichicle and wait for a train, just expecting them to stop, if you ask me she had brain damage before she got hit!!

[coborn35]

When did they start serving alcoholic beverages in the courtroom?

[GP40-2]

The U.P. will have the claim dismissed on appeal. Don't look for any counter suits however. The press would spin doctor that into the big bad railroad picking on this poor girl who wasn't even smart enough to get out of her car as soon as possible.

[Anonymous]

I think there are a lot of facts missing here. Something doesn't sound right to me.

I don't know if the teenager was wrong or if the UP crew was wrong. The teenager may be severly injured because of this accident, but it could also be her fault.

I just don't know.[?][?][?][?][?]

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by coborn35

When did they start serving alcoholic beverages in the courtroom?

Don't know but it explains why there are so many lawyers.[:D]

Judge-"You're out of order and we're out of Scotch"

[Anonymous]

I have always said that the public hates the Railroads. This one I side with the UP this time. I don't that the Union Pacific is at falt with this one at all. your very right GABE! I do smell a RAT! A very nasty one too.
Allan.

[tree68]

Let's see - My boyfriend just rear-ended me and there's a train coming that's gonna hit me. But if I try to get out of the car my boyfriend might rear-end me again and I'll be hurt. Then again, if I don't get out, I'm gonna get hurt.

No wonder she didn't get out.

[Anonymous]

Now don't get me wrong, I think the settlement was very high. But, if memory serves (and don't quote ANYTHING that my "memory" says, because half the time it seems like it is wrong) Missy was very lucky to survive the accident. She was in a coma for about six months and I want to say that most of the doctors thought that she would never wake up. By some miracle she did wake up, and I believe she has actually recovered fairly well. So I really don't think that the family went into the accident for the money, afterwords however, who's to say.

As I said, I think she has mostly recovered, so I think the 11.5 Mil might be a tad high. If UP would have offered to cover her medical bills and perhaps some small compensation, whether the accident was their fault or not, I think would have been a good move on their parts to show that they cared and wanted to help out. Though that might set a bad precedent, I don't know.

I really don't know what I would have done, and it hard to pass judgement since I didn't sit on that jury and have only caught the occasional news story here or there. But what it really comes down to is if by some bad chance of fate you do get stuck on the tracks, get as far away from the tracks and your car as you can (and as fast as you can).

Just my [2c] (and you know how much [2c] is worth these days, about 1/100 of a tank of gas!)

[mudchicken]

(1) The jury pool was "poisoned" from the word go. A change of venue within the state (highly unlikely at the county level) would not have done much good.

(2) Media coverage was anything but balanced.

(3) Nobody in the media reported that the boyfriend WAS CHARGED in the incident.

(4) Two accident investigations revealed that had the boyfriend had not shoved the girls car, the train would have just missed the car. (the plaintiff's expert gets to testify first, the jury did not listen after that - emotions overruled the facts)

(5) There is an Omaha beancounter that needs shot.

(6) UP has yet to play its nuclear option (Gabe is correct about the UP being unable to post-decision sue the boyfriend et. al.)

(7) The plaintiffs lawyers won the case, but the legal trade has pushed itself another step away from ever being considered a profession again.

(8) In Douglas County (in which I reside), the fact that two STUPID kids can't possibly be accountable for their actions, reflects very badly on the community as a whole.

(9) I get disgusted every time the Prince Street OP is brought up as replacing the at-grade crossing at Fifth Street. It does NOT and the city & county fathers (morons all) will fight tooth and nail against the concept of closing the crossing. (Local news media has been suckered-in big time over this because you keep hearing this promoted by them)...

(10) the northbound coal train at 45mph is a little preoccupied with the two crossings at 3rd and 2nd Streets less than 1000 feet in advance of the accident site that idiots with a death wish race to after the gates at 5th Street go down to beat the train.

[soapbox][soapbox][soapbox]

[Anonymous]

If I where the UP,I would not take this to very lightly. UP just got screwed.
Allan.

[edblysard]

Plaintiff’s attorney got to "pick" that jury...

Sorry, ladies, this is going to sound sexist, but a five women and one man jury?

The sympathy jury of your dreams would be an all female one!

What mother could sit and look at this young lady and not feel for her?

You can explain dynamic brakes, air brakes, train handling and braking distance, close clearance and the fact that her boy friend contributed to the accident, and might even have caused it...you could argue all of that till your blue in the face, and the ladies on the jury would still see only a pretty young (daughter figure) girl "harmed" by the railroad.

The moment this girl opened her mouth to testify, it was over....

How in the world UP's attorney ended up letting the plaintiff’s attorney throw the jury is beyond me...?

Although it was never specifically stated, one can assume from the reports that the young lady has suffered enough brain damage to place her in such a position that she will need constant care.
Note that the report stated she can not follow fast or rapid conversation...I can only guess, but it sounds like she will never "mature" in her thinking process, i.e. she is trapped at the mental age level she is at now, maybe lower...sad all the way around.

I am not upset at the girl, or her family, as the father of three daughters, if I found myself and one of them in this situation, I would sue too, for every dime I could get...medical and mental health care for the remainder of her life will be phenomenal...

But the fact that the young man pushed her into the train path should be a mitigating factor, and UP blew its chance of recovery from his insurance by basically including him in this suit....

I still want to know how her car stalled on the crossing...after 30 plus years and millions of miles of driving, I have yet to "stall" on a crossing, nor have I ever seen a car stall on one.
I have seen a car get pushed into a crossing as a result of a rear end wreck, and one that was the result of the driver striking another car, and bouncing into the crossing, where the car engine died, but only as the result of the first accident.

So, why was the car in the crossing, "stalled", in the first place?

My bet was she tried to beat the gates, didn’t, got scared, slammed on the brakes, and if it was a manual transmission, stalled the engine...then panic hits, she cant get moving again, her boyfriend does the dumbest thing in the world, and tries to push her across (I bet it never occurred to him he might end up getting her clear, while placing his auto square in the path of the train)

Last, but not least, if there was time for the boyfriend to attempt to “knock her across” the crossing, and then back up enough to keep from getting hit by the train himself, then there was enough time for the girl to get out of her car and walk away…

Man, where was Operation Lifesaver when these kids were taught to drive?

Ed

[SealBook27]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

I don't necessarily disagree with what about all of your conclusions about the verdict's propriety. But:

(1) Studies show that--assuming the jury acted irrationally--they did so out of compassion for the girl, not hatred for UP. We might have all have acted differently than that jury, but it is difficult to look a girl of that age in the eye and pass up the chance to help her. Yes, I know, if they are feeling that compassionate, they should take money out of their own wallet, not UP's.



Gabe

It's my understanding that juries frequently make awards based on who has deep pockets, not necessarily who was in the wrong.

[eolafan]

"I think we should do some hard core partying"...this is what she is reported to have said after the verdict was read? Well, this alone says a whole lot about her mental capacity. Excuse me, but sounds like yet another misguided moron to me.