Western Railroad Discussion > Why?

There was an article in today's Omaha Weird-Harold about a UP conductor who can sue the RR because he stepped into a hole in an alley in Marysville Ks. while on his to work and injred his knee. The hole was on city, property not RR. The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled he can sue because it was part of his duties. But he had not yet arrived at work, and was not on RR property.

Now, don't misunderstand me, I have graet symapthy for this guy, for anyone, who suffers an injury as a result of someone else's negligence and is unable to work as a result.

But why should the RR be responsible? Is the UP supposed to patrol all the towns where they have crew change points and make sure that all the potholes are filled, and fix any place where the sidewalk might be uneven etc.? I would have no problem with the RR being responsible if it's in their agreement with the union and they knew they agreed to it. But If you or I were injured, say in a car wreck on they way to work and we tried to sue our employer, we get laughed out of the coutroom.

Why is a railroad any different? Any thoughts? Thanks.

I thought this was pretty weird as well. If it was the UP parking lot, okay. But this is city property . I guess by this reasoning if you are in an accident on your way to work, your employer has to compensate you. And you people keep saying us Californians are weird!! :-) I think your Nebraska higher court people have better grade "stuff" than our higher court people!! :-)
C.

Carol Voss
Bakersfield, CA

The article went on to say that the alley was directed use by the UP and that the conductor was
walking from the UP parking lot to the crew office so I do believe that's why they ruled as they did.
Does seem kind of odd considering that the UP probably doesn't handle maintenance on the
alley.

Maybe the UP took disciplinary action against him for not being able to work after taking a call???

Neb. high court says UP worker can sue for injury
By JOSH FUNK (AP) – 23 hours ago

OMAHA, Neb. — A retired Union Pacific conductor can seek compensation for a knee injury because walking into work from the parking lot was part of the conductor's job, the Nebraska Supreme Court said in a ruling released Friday.

The ruling reinstates the lawsuit Glenn Holsapple filed after he stepped in a pothole in April 2006 in Marysville, Kan. A Douglas County, Neb., judge had previously issued a summary judgment in Omaha-based Union Pacific's favor.

Union Pacific's attorneys had argued the railroad shouldn't be held liable because Holsapple was commuting and hadn't yet reported for work when he hurt his knee.

But the Supreme Court determined Holsapple's injury happened during the course of his employment because it was just before his shift began and on a driveway employees regularly used to get from the parking lot to the railroad's depot. It doesn't matter that the driveway is owned by the city of Marysville, not Union Pacific, the court said.

"It was a necessary incident of the workday for Holsapple to walk from his car to the yard office to report for duty," the court said in its ruling.

One of Holsapple's attorneys, Robert T. Dolan of Minneapolis, said the only reason Holsapple was in the driveway "is he was going to work."

"We believe the railroad had a duty to make sure that the parking lot was safe," Dolan said.

A message was left Friday for Union Pacific attorney David Schmitt.

Holsapple tore some knee cartilage in the incident and had to have surgery. He missed work for some time but was able to return to the job before retiring earlier this year.

The Federal Employees Liability Act, which covers railroad workers in much the same way as state-administered worker's compensation laws, mandates that employers provide a safe place for workers. It also outlines the procedure for collecting damages after an injury.

The law says even if Holsapple's employer played only a slight part in the injury, it could be held liable, his lawyers argued.

Union Pacific operates 32,400 miles of track in 23 states from the Midwest to the West and Gulf coasts.

-------------------------------
I still say this is pretty far-fetched. Perhaps there was absolutely no other alternative route to take from the parking lot, but it still wasn't on UP property.
C.

Carol Voss
Bakersfield, CA

As was pointed out, the driving issue is the employer (UP) has directed the employee to park in a specific place and therefore they have exerted control of the employee and therefore the employer owns any increased "risks" this may place on the employee that caused an injury. Many states apply an assumption that as long as the employee takes a direct path from the designated parking lot to their place of employment, they are covered under workers' compensation coverage for any injury that results from an "increased risk" associated with that route. The fact that the injury occurred on a public street is not relevant but there would have to be an unusual hazard (such as the poor condition of the road here) for the increased risk hazard to trigger WC coverage. If the road was in normal condition and the person simply tripped over their own feet there would not likely be any WC coverage applied.

Milwaukee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As was pointed out, the driving issue is the
> employer (UP) has directed the employee to park in
> a specific place and therefore they have exerted
> control of the employee and therefore the employer
> owns any increased "risks" this may place on the
> employee that caused an injury. Many states apply
> an assumption that as long as the employee takes a
> direct path from the designated parking lot to
> their place of employment, they are covered under
> workers' compensation coverage for any injury that
> results from an "increased risk" associated with
> that route. The fact that the injury occurred on
> a public street is not relevant but there would
> have to be an unusual hazard (such as the poor
> condition of the road here) for the increased risk
> hazard to trigger WC coverage. If the road was in
> normal condition and the person simply tripped
> over their own feet there would not likely be any
> WC coverage applied.

Gotcha!! Much more understandable. Thanks!
C.

Carol Voss
Bakersfield, CA

God forbid an adult should watch where the eff he's walking. Of course, in the nanny state, nobody is ever responsible for his/her own actions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/09 12:35 by masterphots.

amen.

By this logic, I should be able to sue Train Orders.com if I come down with carpal tunnel syndrome, as typing on this keyboard is required to post messages as part of my membership.

CarolVoss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought this was pretty weird as well. If it
> was the UP parking lot, okay. But this is city
> property . I guess by this reasoning if you are in
> an accident on your way to work, your employer has
> to compensate you. And you people keep saying us
> Californians are weird!! :-) I think your
> Nebraska higher court people have better grade
> "stuff" than our higher court people!! :-)
> C.


You are weird, and The Nebraska is getting to be just as weird.
Question. If this injury occured in Marysville, KS, why is a Nebraksa court ruling on it?

LCW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CarolVoss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I thought this was pretty weird as well. If it
> > was the UP parking lot, okay. But this is city
> > property . I guess by this reasoning if you are
> in
> > an accident on your way to work, your employer
> has
> > to compensate you. And you people keep saying
> us
> > Californians are weird!! :-) I think your
> > Nebraska higher court people have better grade
> > "stuff" than our higher court people!! :-)
> > C.
>
>
> You are weird, and The Nebraska is getting to be
> just as weird.
> Question. If this injury occured in Marysville,
> KS, why is a Nebraksa court ruling on it?


I would guess his home base is Nebraska and he was temporarily working out of state in Kansas. He could bring his claim in Nebraska in that situation.

Here is my uneducated understanding.

Because the company told him to park at point A and walk to point B, they are responsible for ensuring he can do so safely. Even on public roads and walkways. My employer (non-rail) has made it clear that that when I drive my car from one company site to another for business, they are responsible for any damage to myself or other I may cause. If the alley way is unsafe, UP can now come after the city for their costs.

Had he walked from home or parked somewhere on his own accord, UP would have no responsibility. I am surprised it had to go to appeal.

As for not watching where he was walking, well.....

If I didn t know better I would think it happened in Kalifornia !

Bob Anderson
HUNTINGTN BCH, CA

LCW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CarolVoss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I thought this was pretty weird as well. If it
> > was the UP parking lot, okay. But this is city
> > property . I guess by this reasoning if you are
> in
> > an accident on your way to work, your employer
> has
> > to compensate you. And you people keep saying
> us
> > Californians are weird!! :-) I think your
> > Nebraska higher court people have better grade
> > "stuff" than our higher court people!! :-)
> > C.
>
>
> You are weird, and The Nebraska is getting to be
> just as weird.
> Question. If this injury occured in Marysville,
> KS, why is a Nebraksa court ruling on it?

Possibly because UP is the entity which was sued and it is based in Nebraska and it appealed the ruling to the Nebraska supreme court?? Just a guess on my part.
C.

Carol Voss
Bakersfield, CA

God, I just HATE lawyers!!!...That is, 'til I need one!

CarolVoss Wrote:
> Possibly because UP is the entity which was sued
> and it is based in Nebraska and it appealed the
> ruling to the Nebraska supreme court?? Just a
> guess on my part.
> C.

I actually had thought of that. Also though UP may asked for a change thinking they would get a more favorable ruling in their own back yard.

Did this just happen this year? If so, UP has built a new office facility and has a NEW parking lot to the East of the building and also to the South. NO alley of Marysville runs thru any parking lot on their ground.
If this happened before they moved to the new office and it happened at the old depot, then there could be a chance that something like this to happen as they had to cross a City street to get to the old depot from the parking lot and then the over spill for parking was on the West side of old Depot and the tracks and had to cross the tracks to get to Depot. I think the ground West of the Old Depot was on UP ground.
Marysville is a crew change point and run from there to KC and NW to North Platte. upkpfan

If it has been to the Nebraska Supreme Court, then it has worked it's way through the system. I think a lot of folks are missing the point. All the ruling said is that the conductor can sue. It is a long fight after that. Remember when those Florida smokers tried to sue Philip Morris a few years ago? They were allowed to sue, but still lost. Smokers should never be allowed to sue. They are responsible for their poor decisions. The conductor can sue, but he still may be responsible for his own decisions.

If I were the railroad, I'd sue the city...