Skip to main content

Hedgecorth v. Union Pacific Railroad

Mo. Ct. App.August 22, 2006No. ED 86817Cited 7 times
Plaintiff WinUnion Pacific Railroad Company$240,000 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Kathianne Knaup Crane
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
jury verdict

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

Plaintiff employee prevailed on his FELA negligence claim for asbestos exposure injury. The jury found Union Pacific 80% at fault and awarded $300,000 in total damages, resulting in a judgment of $240,000 after apportionment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

What This Ruling Means

**Hedgecorth v. Union Pacific Railroad: Worker Wins Asbestos Exposure Case** This case involved a railroad worker who sued Union Pacific Railroad after developing health problems from asbestos exposure during his employment. The worker claimed the company was negligent in protecting him from dangerous asbestos materials while he was on the job. A jury sided with the worker, finding that Union Pacific was 80% responsible for his injuries. The jury awarded $300,000 in total damages, but because the worker was found to be 20% at fault, he received $240,000. Union Pacific tried to overturn this decision, but an appeals court upheld the original ruling. This case matters for workers because it shows that railroad employees can successfully hold their employers accountable for workplace safety failures. Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), railroad workers have the right to sue their employers when negligence leads to injury or illness. The ruling demonstrates that companies must take proper safety precautions to protect workers from known health hazards like asbestos. Even when workers share some responsibility for their injuries, they can still recover significant compensation when their employer's negligence is the primary cause of harm.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.