A high-stakes legal battle has erupted over a collision between a garbage truck and a train, leading to an $8.3 million jury award that is now under appeal. The complaint was filed by Theopholia Thomas in the 16th Judicial District Court of St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, against BNSF Railway Company on August 6, 2024.
The case stems from an incident on September 16, 2016, when Theopholia Thomas was driving a garbage truck for Pelican Waste & Debris in Baldwin, Louisiana. As he turned onto Lockley Street from Railroad Avenue, his truck became stuck on the railroad tracks maintained by BNSF Railway Company. Despite attempting to maneuver the truck off the tracks, it was struck by an oncoming BNSF train traveling at approximately 36 miles per hour. Thomas survived but sustained severe injuries that have left him unable to work since the accident.
Thomas's lawsuit alleges that BNSF failed to properly maintain the crossing where the accident occurred. According to testimony and evidence presented during a six-day jury trial in May 2022, the crossing was narrower than industry standards and even BNSF’s internal guidelines. Witnesses testified that railroad crossings should be at least one foot wider than the traveled roadway to ensure safety.
Following deliberations, the jury found BNSF negligent and primarily responsible for the accident, attributing 85% of the fault to them and only 15% to Thomas. The jury awarded Thomas $8,307,050 in damages for past and future lost wages, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.
However, BNSF immediately objected to what they deemed an inconsistent verdict. They argued that while the jury found Thomas negligent, they also concluded his negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident—yet still assigned him 15% fault. This inconsistency led BNSF to file motions for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and for a new trial, both of which were denied by the trial court.
BNSF’s appeal contends that this inconsistency invalidates the judgment entered against them. They argue that Thomas failed to stop or listen adequately before entering the crossing and made poor decisions under pressure. Additionally, they claim that awarding such substantial general damages constitutes an abuse of discretion.
In response to these claims of inconsistency and excessive damages, Judge Wolfe noted that when faced with irreconcilable jury responses as per Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1813(E), a new trial is warranted if further consideration by the same jury isn't feasible. Given significant testimonial conflicts requiring credibility assessments best made in person rather than through transcripts alone—such as whether proper warnings were given or if alternative actions could have prevented harm—the appellate court decided to vacate and remand for a new trial.
Representing Thomas are attorneys Timothy C. Gaarder from Kansas City and Edward J. Walters Jr., based in Baton Rouge; representing BNSF are Kevin M. Dills from Lafayette along with Thomas M. Flanagan and Anders F. Holmgren from New Orleans.
The case is being heard before Judges Welch, Penzato, Wolfe (authoring opinion), Miller (dissenting), and Stromberg under Case ID No: 2023 CA 1209.
___