Case Proceeds Against Metro-North After Man Falls From Platform Before Oncoming Train
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 did not preempt negligence claims against Metro-North Railroad over the 2013 death of Kevin Murphy, who slipped from the platform and fell in front of an oncoming train.
July 11, 2019 at 01:34 PM
3 minute read
The Connecticut Supreme Court has overturned a lower court ruling that found Metro-North Railroad was not liable for the death of a Darien man who slipped on a patch of ice on the platform and fell on the tracks in front of an oncoming train.
In a 5-0 ruling, the justices remanded the case to Bridgeport Superior Court for a jury trial, finding the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 did not preempt negligence claims against Metro-North.
The case, Murphy v. Darien, initially pitted widow Jamey Murphy against Metro-North and the town of Darien, but the municipality was later removed as a defendant.
The sole issue was whether the FRSA preempted negligence claims over the death of Murphy's husband, Kevin, who died when he fell in front of a train traveling 70 mph. The Bridgeport Superior Court found it didn't, but the state's high court disagreed.
The plaintiff is seeking monetary damages. She argued Metro-North was negligent for having the speeding train, which had no scheduled stop at the station, travel on the tracks closest to the platform.
“In layman's terms, there is no federal regulation on track selection,” said Cowdery & Murphy attorney James Healy, one of three plaintiff lawyers representing Murphy's estate. “That was our point and that's why federal preemption did not apply here.”
The high court agreed, siding with the plaintiff over the train company.
Writing for the majority, Justice Raheem Mullins wrote: “In the present case, the defendant asserts that the trial court correctly concluded that, although there is no regulation expressly addressing the selection of an interior or exterior track for trains, the general regulatory scheme of track classification substantially subsumes the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim. We disagree.”
Plaintiff counsel Healy celebrated the decision.
“I give the high court a lot of credit,” he told the Connecticut Law Tribune Thursday. “The issue of track selection hasn't been decided in any other written decision that either party is aware of. The Supreme Court did their work. They understood the preemption analysis and applied it correctly.”
Healy added, “The evidence indicates that Metro-North's usual practice was not to run trains in the tracks immediately adjacent to the platform when an interior track was available. If the train ran on an interior track, which is one track removed from the platform, this accident would not have happened.”
Fellow plaintiff counsel Joel Faxon, a partner with New Haven-based Faxon Law Group, said Murphy “was pleased with the result and, quite frankly, was confident the entire time that the trial court's decision would be reversed.”
Faxon said the “case definitely is a high seven-figure value case” and expects to go to trial at the end of this year or early 2020.
Assisting Healy and Faxon for the plaintiffs side was John D'Ambrosio, an attorney with Cowdery & Murphy.
Metro-North spokeswoman Nancy Gamerman declined to comment.
Representing the company are Stamford and Bridgeport-based Ryan Ryan DeLuca attorneys Robert Hickey and Beck Fineman, and attorney Kerianne Kane with Saxe Doernberger & Vita in Trumbull.
“We are studying the decision and contemplating our options,” Hickey said, without elaboration. Fineman did not respond to a request for comment and Kane declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Splits Couple's Potential Recoupment of Punitive Damages Against eBay's Harassment Campaign
4 minute readVince McMahon's Accuser Pursues Records Amid Sexual Assault, Trafficking Claims
4 minute read'Severe Emotional Distress': DC Judge Finds Iran Liable in 3 US Hostage-Takings
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Fulfilled Her Purpose on the Court': Presiding Judge M. Yvette Miller Is 'Ready for a New Challenge'
- 2Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 3A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 4Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
- 5Navigating Twitter's 'Rocky Deal Process' Helped Drive Simpson Thacher's Tech and Telecom Practice
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250