An aftermarket train horn just cost a trucker nearly $2 million after a jury found him negligent in a case that left a construction worker with permanent hearing loss.
A jury in a Hinds County, Miss., court recently awarded Robert Kelly $1.8 million in his lawsuit claiming a train horn installed on a truck caused him to lose his hearing. The complaint filed against Jerry Garland claims the truck driver was negligent in blasting the excessively loud horn.
The already unusual case took a surprising turn when Kelly sought damages for a completely unrelated loss of vision that occurred during litigation. To add insult to injury, Garland faces a separate lawsuit against his insurance company related to having an inadequate policy limit.
The train horn incident
Kelly’s lawsuit centers on the simple act of a trucker honking his horn.
In May 2020, Kelly was laying asphalt when he walked in front of Garland’s truck. The truck driver claims the construction worker was blocking the roadway. Consequently, Garland blasted his Union Pacific three-trumpet train horn for about 10 seconds while Kelly was less than 10 feet in front of the truck.
Kelly claims the blast from the train horn caused him to incur permanent hearing loss. According to Union Pacific, the horn’s sound output is 145 decibels. For comparison, a jet engine is about 140 decibels. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s classification of permissible noise exposure maxes out at 115 decibels, after which a hearing conservation program is required.
The lawsuit claims honking the train horn was unnecessary.
“There was no need to pull within close proximity of the plaintiff and blow his train horn for an extended period of time,” the lawsuit states. “There was no emergency. There was no traffic, and the defendant had nowhere to be by a specific deadline. The train horn itself was an OSHA violation on the work site. This is further evidence of negligence. The defendant’s actions were not reasonable.”
As a result of his injuries, Kelly was out of work for three months before resuming his job for another two years. He filed a lawsuit against Garland in February 2021. In June 2022, an unexpected medical emergency would throw a wrench in the case.
Unrelated brain tumor adds millions to the case
While the case was being handled in the Mississippi court, Kelly lost his sight, causing him to add to the damages being sought.
In June 2022, with the court case still pending, Kelly was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Complications from the surgery to remove the tumor left him legally blind. As a result, Kelly requires 16 hours of attendant care, according to an expert witness.
No one disputes the fact that Kelly’s brain tumor and the resulting loss of vision is unrelated to the train horn incident, including Kelly and his expert witnesses. Despite that understanding, Kelly sought to recover nearly $4 million in damages for attendant care.
Although the loss of vision had nothing to do with the train horn incident, an expert witness testified that around-the-clock attendant care is necessary due to the combination of Kelly being blind and deaf. The expert testified that minimal assistance would be needed if Kelly were only blind. However, his additional loss of hearing escalates the severity of the situation, requiring attendant care.
Jury verdict
Ultimately, the jury would side with the construction worker, finding Garland negligent for blasting a train horn.
In total, Kelly was awarded $1,787,597, most of which included noneconomic harm compensation. Specifically, the jury awarded the following:
- $1.5 million for pain and suffering
- $150,000 for future lost wages
- $66,794 for future care
- $60,000 for loss of household services
- $6,483 for medical bills
- $4,320 for lost wages
Fortunately for Garland, Mississippi caps noneconomic damages at $1 million. Unfortunately for Garland, he is likely to be personally on the hook for most of it.
Insurance dispute
Garland faces a second lawsuit for not having the required insurance policy limit on his truck.
In order to secure his contract work at the construction site, Garland’s company, Goodtime Trucking, was required a $1 million insurance policy. He acquired that insurance, which was presented to the company running the worksite.
But after submitting proof of insurance, Garland did an about-face and lowered his policy. Upon securing the job, the trucker canceled his $1 million insurance policy. He then reinstated his insurance with a $100,000 policy, which was in place during the train horn incident and far below the federal requirement of $750,000.
In a preemptive strike, Garland’s insurance company filed a complaint for declaratory relief against him and Kelly to declare it is responsible for no more than $100,000.
According to the complaint, Kelly is claiming that the insurance company should have issued the policy with a higher liability limit. However, the insurance company claims that Mississippi law does not require an insurance agent to advise an insured of its coverage needs. At the federal level, regulations requiring a certain amount of insurance are directed at the motor carrier, not the insurer.
The case is pending in a Mississippi federal court. LL
Find more trucking news at LandLine.media.
Credit: Source link
