Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; October 3, 1995; Illinois; State Appellate Court
Alton Southern Railway Company appeals a judgment in favor of Jerold Edwards, who claimed neck and back injuries under the Boiler Inspection Act. The Madison County circuit court awarded Edwards $1,454,000 based on a jury verdict. The case stems from an incident on July 15, 1988, while Edwards was inspecting locomotives in the 'pit' during his machinist duties.
On the day of the accident, Edwards was involved in splitting a four-engine group into two groups and had completed his inspection, which is mandatory before working on equipment. He noted that the track was not 'blue-flagged,' indicating it was unsafe to work on the locomotives. Edwards was uncertain if the engines had been checked for fuel and sand, as that was the hostler helper's responsibility.
During the process of moving the locomotives, Edwards discovered that the drawbar on locomotive 3347 was misaligned. He attempted to adjust the drawbar, which unexpectedly moved and caused him to twist and fall, resulting in his injuries. There were no witnesses to the accident, and Edwards could not recall details of his actions between 12:20 p.m. and 1 p.m., although he reported the accident occurred at 11 a.m. A foreman later inspected the locomotive after the incident. The court affirmed the jury's decision in favor of Edwards.
Stephens reported finding no defects during his inspection of the drawbar, explaining that a drawbar that can be manually moved, even if stiff, does not qualify as defective unless it shows actual damage such as cracks or missing parts. He detailed his approach to moving a drawbar, which may involve using a forklift if initial attempts fail. Korando, a locomotive foreman, echoed this, stating that a sticking drawbar indicates an issue. Floyd Cooper, a transportation department superintendent, noted that if a drawbar cannot be moved with reasonable force, assistance should be sought.
The plaintiff, who received a manual of safety rules in 1986, asserted that he did not apply unreasonable force when pushing the drawbar and did not injure himself from excessive lifting. Following an accident, Cooper accompanied the plaintiff to Dr. Cynthia Byler, where the plaintiff reported sharp neck pain while pushing a drawbar. Although he did not fall and could continue working, he experienced radiating pain into his left shoulder. Dr. Byler diagnosed a cervical strain, prescribing muscle relaxants and anti-inflammatory medication, with a recommendation for physical therapy thrice weekly. The plaintiff was given a 10-pound lifting limit and scheduled for a follow-up on July 22, 1988.
At a July 18 follow-up, the plaintiff reported improvement but noted shoulder soreness and side effects from medication. Dr. Byler diagnosed a resolving cervical strain and advised continuing light duty and physical therapy. During the final examination on July 22, there was noted tenderness and muscle spasms, with a treatment plan involving Flexeril and Tylenol III for pain management. Subsequently, on August 1, 1988, Dr. Mayda diagnosed a hernia in the plaintiff, which was repaired, and the plaintiff reported no further issues from it. Prior to the incident, the plaintiff had been treated by chiropractor Dr. Warren A. Stewart, Jr., starting June 10, 1988.
The plaintiff reported to Dr. Stewart persistent pain in the left side of his neck, shoulder, lower back, headaches, and numbness in both feet for two years. During an examination on June 10, 1988, Dr. Stewart conducted several tests, including the Spurling’s, Soto-Hall, and Adson’s tests, all of which returned positive results, indicating underlying issues in the neck and upper back. Dr. Stewart noted limited neck motion in all directions except left rotation, but described the plaintiff's condition as not severe, diagnosing him with cervical myofascitis, cervical-brachial neuralgia, multiple cervical subluxations, and injuries to cervical nerves C5 through C7. He recommended postural changes and exercises for improvement and did not believe the plaintiff had a cervical disc injury.
Dr. George R. Schoedinger III examined the plaintiff on August 16, 1988, after the plaintiff reported an injury sustained on July 15, 1988, while moving an engine coupler. The plaintiff experienced immediate severe pain in his neck and shoulder, with subsequent pain radiating into his left arm and sensory loss in the fourth and fifth fingers of his left hand. Dr. Schoedinger’s examination revealed decreased sensation but was otherwise normal, and X-rays showed no abnormalities. However, based on the symptoms, he suspected a cervical disc rupture. Subsequent imaging on August 31, 1988, confirmed disc ruptures between the fifth and sixth and sixth and seventh vertebrae.
On September 8, 1988, Dr. Schoedinger advised the plaintiff to consider surgery for ongoing issues related to injuries sustained in a July 15, 1988 accident, which he attributed to two ruptured cervical discs. The plaintiff communicated a need for intervention on November 18, 1988, leading to surgery on December 9, 1988, where Dr. Schoedinger removed two discs and performed a fusion procedure. The plaintiff was discharged the following day and scheduled for a one-month follow-up.
At the February 1, 1989 follow-up, the plaintiff reported neck pain but had no arm complaints, and his examination was normal. Subsequent visits revealed ongoing pain, stiffness, and numbness. By April 12, 1993, the plaintiff experienced increased neck pain, headaches, and ringing in the ears, although most examination results remained normal. An MRI indicated successful fusion but also scarring, leading Dr. Schoedinger to conclude that further treatment would not be beneficial. He noted the plaintiff would likely experience persistent neck pain and a permanent alteration to his spine, rendering him unable to return to his job as a railroad machinist, though he could provide a work release if requested.
Defendant’s counsel arranged for a consultation with neurologist Dr. Patrick A. Hogan on May 19, 1992. Dr. Hogan, after reviewing medical records and conducting an examination, concluded the plaintiff could perform machinist duties and would not require further medical care. He also opined that the disc rupture treated by Dr. Schoedinger predated the accident. Testimony from Evelyn Pulley, the defendant's superintendent of safety, indicated that the plaintiff had minimal absenteeism prior to the accident and lacked a work history suggesting a ruptured disc condition.
Defendant’s records indicate the plaintiff was off work due to an accident on July 15, 1988, resulting from moving a coupler on a diesel engine. The plaintiff's personnel file corroborates that he was on leave due to a personal injury incurred while on duty. The plaintiff's second amended complaint included four counts, with the defendant moving for a directed verdict on the Boiler Inspection Act (count IV), claiming the Act was inapplicable. The trial court denied this motion and later directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff regarding liability under the Boiler Inspection Act, allowing the case to proceed to the jury solely on this count.
The jury awarded damages totaling $1,454,000, covering disability, pain and suffering, lost wages, and medical expenses. The defendant argues that the circuit court erred in directing the verdict, asserting that the locomotive was not 'in use' according to the Act’s definition at the time of the accident. The Boiler Inspection Act mandates that locomotives must be in safe operating condition and inspected as per specified regulations. The defendant cites precedent cases to argue that locomotives undergoing inspection or repair are not considered 'in use.'
However, the record lacks evidence that the locomotive's fuel and sand levels needed checking at the time of the accident. The defendant claims the burden was on the plaintiff to demonstrate that all necessary maintenance had been completed prior to the accident, which the plaintiff failed to do. Contrarily, the plaintiff testified that his inspection was thorough and that the couplers were ready for crew use. It was established that when maintenance is performed, the track must be secured ('blue-flagged') and that the track was operational ('live') during the accident, as it was not blue-flagged at that time. The court finds the circumstances of this case to be stronger than those in the cited precedent.
A machinist named Angell sustained an injury to his right ear due to a high-pressure air blast from a defective brake valve while assisting in the transfer of diesel engines at railway facilities. The engine had already undergone necessary servicing and was being moved to join a "consist" for a scheduled train. The defendant railroad contended that the accident fell outside the Boiler Inspection Act's scope, asserting the engine was not "in use" at the time. The court distinguished this case from previous ones cited by the defendant, noting that all servicing and inspections had been completed and the engine was ready for operation. Testimony revealed that the track was not blue-flagged and the engines were prepared for the crew. The burden of proof shifted to the defendant to demonstrate that the engines required additional servicing, but they failed to provide such evidence. Additionally, a locomotive shop foreman testified that the specific locomotive involved did not need to be fueled and sanded before departure. The court also addressed the defendant's objection to the admission of portions of a discovery deposition at trial, affirming that such statements can be admitted as evidence if made within the scope of the agent's employment, in line with Illinois Supreme Court rules and trends in evidentiary standards.
The broader perspective is supported by precedents such as Troop v. St. Louis Union Trust Co. and Ogg v. City of Springfield, which establish the admissibility of statements related to employment duties. Fred Norris, a switchman for the defendant, was injured in 1986 while handling a malfunctioning drawbar. His deposition reflects knowledge pertinent to his role, suggesting that his statement constitutes an admission that could attribute awareness of the dangers of frozen drawbars to the defendant. The court found no error in admitting this deposition, emphasizing that the evidence was largely cumulative, as testimony indicated prior injuries related to similar circumstances. Norris' incident did not prejudice the defendant, leading to the conclusion that any error was harmless. The trial court's judgment is affirmed with a modification to reduce the plaintiff’s award by $7,394.95, specifically regarding accrued interest on medical expenses. Judges GOLDENHERSH and RARICK concur with the decision.
