공지사항

CSX Railroad Lawsuit

Residents of Curtis Bay have filed a class-action lawsuit against CSX Transportation. The lawsuit alleges that an explosion at a CSX plant has led to pollutants in the air including arsenic, lead, and silica.

The plaintiff was employed by CSX from 1962 to 2002. While working for the company, he was been exposed to diesel exhaust fumes and asbestos. He was diagnosed with lung cancer and lung disease.

Damages

The CSX Transportation railway may have been responsible for a flooding that caused massive damage to a small North Carolina community. The lawsuit asserts that the railroad knee injury settlements allowed debris to block a culvert, Railroad Lawsuit causing water to re-enter the culvert. This caused the water to pressurize and swell up through the blockage into the town of Waverly. The resulting tidal waves destroyed homes, displaced residents and killed at least one person. The residents of the town claim that CSX did not warn them of the dangers that could result from the flood, which they claim was caused by the railroad cancer lawsuit's failure to clear the clogged canal.

Plaintiffs have presented evidence that the vegetation at the Jordan Street crossing was so overgrown that motorists could not see if trains were approaching, which is sufficient to establish that CSX was negligent in maintaining the rail line. CSX argues that the trial court abused its discretion by accepting this evidence and the jury should have been informed that Mr. Hensley must prove that his concern about cancer was real and serious.

A southeast Georgia man has filed an action against CSX in which he claims the company fired him because of his complaints regarding safety violations. Chase Highsmith claims CSX violated federal regulations and was negligent in its maintenance of rail vehicles. Highsmith claims he was dismissed as a carman and railroad car inspector, after he reported violations of rail safety laws.

Premises liability

When a person is injured at the property of someone else and suffers an injury, they could be able to file a lawsuit against the owner or caretakers of that property. It's not always easy, but the key is to prove that the person responsible was legally required to maintain safety standards on their premises.

For instance, a flood at a home could have been prevented by ensuring the culverts transport floodwaters from the railroad track to the creek. The lawsuit argues that CSX allowed debris to block these culverts with time which caused a blockage. This caused water to back up and unleash what survivors called a wall of water.

In the second instance, the jury awarded plaintiff Robert Highsmith nearly $7 million after finding that he had suffered injuries from asbestos exposure while working at CSX. However the judge has overturned the verdict, claiming that the jury was not properly informed on the law and denied the opportunity to consider expert testimony.

Highsmith claims his job was as a railroad engineer, and was promoted to locomotive engineer. He's seeking reinstatement, promotion, compensation damages and punitive damage, and interest on backpay. Highsmith on the other side, claims that the company's policy was violated and that he had no legitimate reason for him to be absent from work.

Negligence

A man suing CSX over an injury he suffered while working claims that the company was negligent in not providing him with a safe and secure work environment. According to the lawsuit the plaintiff was thrown off a tank vehicle as he released vertical hand brakes. The fall caused him to suffer from post-concussion syndrome with a fractured leg, neck, and a herniated disc on three different levels in his spine.

The lawsuit also claims that the railroad settlement was unable to keep a safe distance between trains and pedestrians. The lawsuit claims that a misaligned switch on the track contributed to the accident, and Railroad Lawsuit the plaintiff had been under stress because of threats and demands from supervisors. The lawsuit asserts that CSX was in violation of the Federal Employers' Liability Act and the Railway Labor Act.

The survivors of a fatal flood in Waverly (Tennessee) are seeking to sue CSX, as well as two property owners in the local area. The families of the victims are seeking $450 million damages. They claim that the flooding could have been avoided. The lawsuit claims that CSX allowed various debris to clog the culvert that runs under the bridge that runs under the train, which blocked the natural flow of water and backed up the waters. The lawsuit asserts that the company was negligent for not clearing culverts and then dumping debris onto the nearby property that is owned by Sherry Hughey and James Hughey.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

In addition to the monetary damages from the flood In addition to the financial losses, residents of Curtis Bay are suffering emotional distress and fear of future disasters. They are also concerned about the possibility of a second tsunami. Additionally, the transfer facility's constant operation threatens their safety and well-being. The lawsuit asserts that CSX must be held accountable for any harm caused by their actions.

The lawsuit also claims that CSX did not warn residents of the flooding and the dangers of the bridge that it owns. The suit also claims that CSX did not clear a culvert in its property, leading to ponding and eventually a tide wave. In addition, the suit claims that CSX was warned of the flooding problem by neighbors as well as by New York state officials.

CSX is also arguing that the charge of the trial court to the jury on mitigating damages was untrue and insufficient. In particular, it left jury with an incorrect impression that Miller was obligated to exert an effort to resume gainful employment within a reasonable period of time after his injury. The trial court did not clarify the extent to which this duty remained in effect after Miller quit CSX in March 23, 2003. In addition, it did not make clear that the trial judge had the power to issue an apportionment order which would have allowed the jury to distribute liability between CSX's negligence and Miller's age and history of smoking.