On April 19th, a federal jury in
Atlanta awarded our client Doug Burchfield more than $20 million for a 2005
accident that resulted in a double amputation of his legs. This monumental
victory overturned a 2009 jury verdict that found the railroad wasn't liable
for his catastrophic injuries.
At the time of the accident, Mr. Burchfield
was moving the cars as part of his job with General Mills in Covington when a
rail car with a faulty brake rolled down a hill and plowed into two other rail
cars. All three cars rolled over him, severing his right leg above the knee and
his left leg below the knee.
Initially losing the case to a defense
verdict in 2009, we were given a second chance and a new trial after a panel of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the original
verdict and remanded the case.
The panel found that the trial judge had
erred in allowing the first jury to view a video recreating the accident that
was used by CSX to blame Burchfield for what railroad lawyers said was his
failure to set the hand brake on the car that caused the accident. The
appellate judges said trial testimony made it impossible to assess whether what
the court acknowledged was a highly prejudicial video was fairly and honestly
made. The same video was admitted
in the second trial too but was not believed by the jury to be credible.
This case has been a long and tedious journey
for both our firm and our client, given the details surrounding the incident.
CSX insisted throughout the litigation that Mr. Burchfield never set the hand
brake, which they argued was not faulty and would have held the car in place,
even on a downhill grade. Because of the severity of his injuries that day, Mr.
Burchfield retained no memory of the accident, although he always insisted that
he had set the rail car's hand brake because it was his common practice to do
so. The accident also resulted in the partial release of the hand brake after it
had failed, making it appear as if it had not been set. We were able to show
that the impact was the best explanation for the partial release of the
handbrake – not the failure to apply it in the first place. Because of the lack of any hard
evidence, we knew that proving the case was going to be a challenge.
Regardless of the setbacks, it became
apparent early in the investigation that the hand brake, which was supposed to
hold the railcar, was badly out of adjustment—in violation of federal law—and
failed to hold the brake shoes in place against the rail car wheels. There was
also an emergency air brake that initially locked the car in place that also
gave out, and the rail car rolled down an incline, striking two other cars
before rolling over Burchfield. We prepared our case by hiring qualified experts
to investigate and replicate important factors surrounding that day, including
several tests done on the original railcar.
Our experts found and testified that the rail
car's hand brake was badly out of adjustment and that indentations and rust
found in close proximity to the hand brake indicated that it had been out of
adjustment for some time. Indeed, the shoes were not firmly against the wheels
even after the brake was applied. One
of our experts determined that CSX should never have delivered the rail car and
that, given the questionable condition of the hand brake; it should have
remained on flat ground with the wheels secured by wooden blocks or chains.
CSX introduced a video that purported to show
that when the rail car's hand brake was engaged it would hold the car in
place. We were able to show that
when the video was made, the car had been modified. Before the video was made, photos
clearly showed the hand brake's defects, including one piece of the braking
mechanism that was striking the bottom of the rail car. In the video, some of
the conditions apparent in earlier photos had been altered so that the hand
brake would function.
As a result, our argument was, "If only
CSX had adjusted the hand brake before it was delivered … and not when they made
this video," the accident would not have happened.
In the retrial, in addition to using a
different approach to the evidence, our team also employed a shadow jury whose
members provided daily feedback to the lawyers on their impressions of the
case. This time around, we had decided to take what we had and really embrace
it.
Our case was strengthened by the fact that every
single witness who testified for the railroad was impeached on one point or
another. Some had changed their testimony from the first trial; others had
altered their testimony since they had been deposed to reflect CSX's position
that the hand brake was functional and safe. All the witnesses had, for reasons
we don't know, become squirrely on their answers.
The jury—this time an almost even split of
men and women, including a foreman who had master's degree in chemistry from
Georgia Tech and was studying for a Ph.D.—understood the evidence we presented
and just flat out “got it”. Jurors told us after the verdict that they didn't
spend a lot of time talking about liability. They were focusing on damages and
how to take care of Doug. Since the trial, we have also filed a motion seeking
an additional $4.5 million in interest stemming from our original demand for
compensation about five years ago.
This verdict has been a sweet end to a long
and complicated journey, as well as an ideal outcome for a deserving client and
a good friend. When we initially received this case from Mr. Burchfield,
another law firm had already turned it down. Having several years experience in
railroad and FELA cases, I felt that we had the resources and expertise necessary
to help Mr. Burchfield win his case. In the end, it is nice knowing that Mr.
Burchfield will now be able to receive the medical care needed to live a long
and comfortable life.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Warshauer
Michael J. Warshauer
