Doyle Dennis Avery LLP and Sara Youngdahl of The Youngdahl Law Firm, P.C. have filed a lawsuit in the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana, against Union Pacific Railroad Company on behalf of a locomotive engineer who suffered serious injuries to his neck, back, and other areas of his body after a handbrake on a Union Pacific locomotive failed to function properly. The lawsuit asserts claims under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), the Safety Appliance Act (49 U.S.C. § 20302), and the Locomotive Inspection Act (49 U.S.C. § 20701), alleging that Union Pacific’s failure to properly inspect, maintain, and repair its locomotive equipment directly caused the engineer’s injuries and violated multiple federal safety statutes.
Locomotive engineers are trained professionals who operate the most powerful pieces of equipment in the transportation industry. They depend on their employer to maintain that equipment to strict federal safety standards. When a locomotive’s handbrake fails to function as designed — forcing an engineer to struggle against a malfunctioning mechanism — the resulting injury is a direct consequence of the railroad’s failure to uphold its legal obligations.
Firms Representing the Injured Engineer: Doyle Dennis Avery LLP (Michael P. Doyle, Patrick M. Dennis, Jeff Avery) and Sara Youngdahl of The Youngdahl Law Firm, P.C. Together, these firms have recovered millions for injured workers nationwide.
The April 29, 2025 Handbrake Failure at Reisor Railyard, Caddo Parish, Louisiana
On April 29, 2025, our client was performing his regular duties as a locomotive engineer for Union Pacific at the company’s Reisor Railyard in Caddo Parish, Louisiana. As part of his responsibilities, he attempted to secure a locomotive using its handbrake — a routine task performed countless times by railroad engineers across the country every day.
The handbrake failed. It did not respond as designed when our client attempted to operate it. A properly functioning handbrake should engage smoothly and predictably; instead, the malfunctioning mechanism forced our client into an abnormal physical struggle to operate equipment that should have worked without effort. This sudden, unexpected force caused him to sustain significant injuries to his neck, back, and other parts of his body.
The failure of this handbrake was not an unforeseeable event. Locomotive handbrakes are required by federal law to be maintained in proper working condition. They are subject to regular inspection requirements specifically because a handbrake that fails can injure the worker who uses it and create a dangerous runaway locomotive situation. Union Pacific’s failure to maintain this handbrake in compliance with federal safety standards is exactly the type of negligence that FELA and the companion safety statutes were designed to address.
As a result of his injuries, our client has experienced severe and persistent physical pain, mental anguish, and significant financial losses from medical expenses and lost wages. The lawsuit seeks to hold Union Pacific fully accountable for all of these damages.
Three Federal Laws Violated: FELA, the Safety Appliance Act, and the Locomotive Inspection Act
What makes this case particularly powerful is the breadth of federal law that Union Pacific violated in allowing this defective handbrake to remain in service. The lawsuit asserts claims under three separate federal statutes:
The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA)
FELA requires every interstate railroad to provide its employees with a reasonably safe place to work. This duty extends to the equipment the railroad requires its workers to use. A locomotive with a defective handbrake is not safe — and a railroad that puts workers in the position of operating that equipment in violation of its maintenance obligations fails its FELA duty. Under FELA’s favorable causation standard, the injured worker only needs to show that the railroad’s negligence played some part in causing the injury. Here, the causal link between the defective handbrake and our client’s injuries is direct and unmistakable.
The Safety Appliance Act (49 U.S.C. § 20302)
The Safety Appliance Act (SAA) mandates that railroads maintain specific safety equipment — including handbrakes — on their rolling stock in proper operating condition. The regulations implementing the SAA, found at 49 C.F.R. §§ 231, 231.1(a), and 231.30(c), establish specific functional requirements for handbrakes. When a railroad violates the SAA, it is strictly liable — meaning the railroad does not need to have been careless or to have known about the defect. The fact that the equipment failed to meet the federal standard is sufficient to establish liability. This strict liability standard is one of the most valuable tools available to injured railroad workers.
The Locomotive Inspection Act (49 U.S.C. § 20701)
The Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) requires that all locomotives and their components be in proper condition and safe to operate at all times. The implementing regulations at 49 C.F.R. §§ 229.7 and 229.45 impose broad maintenance requirements on locomotive equipment, including that all components be maintained in good repair. A locomotive with a handbrake that fails to function properly is not in compliance with the LIA, and the railroad’s failure to ensure compliance with this statute constitutes negligence per se under FELA.
Specific Allegations Against Union Pacific
The lawsuit sets forth the following specific allegations of negligence and statutory violation against Union Pacific:
- Failure to inspect and maintain the handbrake: Union Pacific failed to implement and follow a program of regular, thorough inspection of its locomotive handbrakes, allowing the defective handbrake to remain in service past the point at which a proper inspection would have identified and remediated the failure.
- Failure to maintain the locomotive in a safe condition: Under the Locomotive Inspection Act, Union Pacific was required to ensure that the locomotive assigned to our client was in proper condition and safe to operate. It failed to meet this obligation.
- Failure to train employees in safe maintenance procedures: Union Pacific failed to properly train its maintenance personnel to identify and respond to handbrake defects, resulting in a compromised handbrake remaining in active service.
- Failure to implement adequate safety policies: Union Pacific failed to establish and enforce the safety management systems and maintenance protocols necessary to ensure its equipment complied with federal standards.
- Violations of the Safety Appliance Act and Locomotive Inspection Act: These statutory violations constitute strict liability and negligence per se, independently establishing Union Pacific’s legal responsibility for our client’s injuries.
Our Client’s Injuries and Path Forward
Neck and back injuries are among the most serious and life-altering consequences of railroad workplace injuries. The cervical spine (neck) and lumbar spine (lower back) are complex structures involving bones, discs, nerves, and soft tissue — any of which can be damaged by the sudden, forceful movements associated with struggling against malfunctioning equipment. Injuries to these areas can result in disc herniation, nerve impingement, chronic pain, reduced mobility, and in severe cases, the need for spinal surgery.
Our client is an experienced locomotive engineer whose career — and livelihood — depends on his physical ability to perform the demanding tasks his job requires. An injury to his neck and back places his continued employment at risk and may affect his earning capacity for years or decades to come. The lawsuit seeks to recover the full extent of his economic losses — current and future medical expenses, lost wages, and loss of earning capacity — as well as the non-economic damages of physical pain, mental anguish, and reduced quality of life.
Injured by defective railroad equipment? Our FELA attorneys are ready to fight for your rights. Call today.
(713) 571-1146About the Firms
Doyle Dennis Avery LLP — with attorneys Michael P. Doyle, Patrick M. Dennis, and Jeff Avery — brings decades of experience representing injured railroad workers in complex FELA claims across the country. With millions recovered for clients, the firm has established itself as one of the leading FELA practices in the nation.
Sara Youngdahl of The Youngdahl Law Firm, P.C. focuses her practice on railroad law and brings specialized knowledge of the Safety Appliance Act, the Locomotive Inspection Act, and all aspects of FELA litigation to every case. Together, these firms offer injured railroad workers a legal team that is uniquely equipped to pursue maximum compensation against the nation’s largest railroads.
Both firms handle cases on a No Win, No Fee contingency basis. Contact them at (713) 571-1146 or toll-free at (888) 571-1001 for a free, confidential consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions: Locomotive Equipment Failures and FELA Claims
The Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), codified at 49 U.S.C. § 20701, requires railroads to maintain their locomotives and all locomotive components in proper condition and safe to operate. The FRA’s implementing regulations at 49 C.F.R. Part 229 establish detailed maintenance standards. The LIA protects railroad workers by imposing a strict, comprehensive maintenance obligation on railroads — one that cannot be delegated or contracted away. When a railroad violates the LIA and a worker is injured as a result, the violation constitutes negligence per se under FELA, establishing the railroad’s liability without requiring the worker to separately prove negligence.
Strict liability means that a party can be held responsible for harm regardless of whether they were careless or even knew about the defect. Under the Safety Appliance Act, railroads are strictly liable for injuries caused by equipment that fails to meet federal safety standards — including handbrakes that fail to function properly. The injured worker does not need to prove that the railroad knew the handbrake was defective, or that the railroad failed to exercise due care in its maintenance program. The failure of the equipment to meet the federal standard is, by itself, sufficient to establish liability. This is a critically important protection for injured railroad workers.
Neck and back injury claims are valued based on the full extent of physical and financial harm they cause. Factors that increase the value of these claims include: the severity of the injury (disc herniation vs. soft tissue strain), whether surgery is required, the duration and cost of medical treatment, the degree to which the injury limits daily activities and work capacity, the worker’s age and career prospects, whether permanent impairment is present, and the degree of pain and suffering. An experienced FELA attorney will work with medical experts, vocational experts, and economists to fully document all of these factors and present a compelling damages case.
The FELA statute of limitations is three years nationwide, regardless of the state in which the injury occurred or the lawsuit is filed. This three-year period begins on the date of the injury. Louisiana state law personal injury claims generally have a one-year prescription period, but FELA’s three-year federal limitations period governs FELA claims filed in Louisiana state or federal court. Despite the relatively longer FELA deadline, it is still critical to consult an attorney promptly — evidence preservation and investigation cannot wait.
This is a common railroad defense. However, maintenance records can be incomplete, falsified, or missing entirely. An experienced FELA attorney will conduct thorough discovery to obtain and scrutinize all maintenance logs, inspection records, defect reports, and repair orders related to the locomotive. The attorney may also retain expert witnesses who can examine the failed equipment and offer opinions on what the defect was, how long it had been present, and whether a reasonable inspection program would have identified it. The SAA’s strict liability provision also means that even if the railroad produced perfect maintenance records, liability can still be established if the equipment failed to meet federal standards at the time of the injury.
Yes. FELA’s comparative fault system allows recovery even when the injured worker was partially at fault. Your total damages are reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to you, but you are not barred from recovery. Additionally, when the railroad has violated the Safety Appliance Act or Locomotive Inspection Act, your contributory negligence cannot be used to reduce your damages for those statutory violations — making the presence of SAA and LIA claims even more valuable in equipment failure cases.
Critical evidence includes: the locomotive itself and its handbrake mechanism (which should be preserved immediately if possible); photographs of the handbrake and locomotive; all maintenance and inspection records for the locomotive; FRA inspection records; the railroad’s internal safety reporting system (CORITY, Railware, or equivalent); witness statements from co-workers and supervisors; the worker’s written account of the incident prepared promptly after the injury; and medical records documenting the injuries. An experienced FELA attorney can take immediate legal steps to preserve this evidence before it is lost or destroyed.
FELA cases, like all complex litigation, vary in their timelines. A case that settles before trial may resolve in one to two years; cases that proceed through trial may take longer. The factors that most affect timeline include the complexity of the liability issues, the severity of the injuries (which may require waiting for maximum medical improvement before full damages can be assessed), the willingness of the railroad to negotiate in good faith, and the court’s docket. An experienced FELA attorney will move the case forward as efficiently as possible while ensuring that your damages are fully developed before any settlement is considered.
Maximum medical improvement (MMI) is the point at which your treating physicians determine that your condition has stabilized and further significant improvement is unlikely, though ongoing treatment may still be needed. In FELA cases, it is generally advisable to wait until MMI before settling, because the settlement must include all future medical costs and lost earning capacity — and those figures cannot be accurately projected until your doctors know the full extent of your long-term condition. An experienced FELA attorney will advise you on the appropriate timing for settlement negotiations in your specific case.
The combination of Doyle Dennis Avery LLP’s track record of millions recovered and Sara Youngdahl’s specialized expertise in railroad law creates a uniquely powerful legal team for injured railroad workers. These firms understand the specific nuances of FELA, the Safety Appliance Act, and the Locomotive Inspection Act — and they know how Union Pacific, BNSF, CSX, and other major railroads approach the defense of these claims. With a No Win, No Fee commitment and free consultations, there is no risk in calling to discuss your case.
Yes. Initial consultations with Doyle Dennis Avery LLP and The Youngdahl Law Firm, P.C. are completely free of charge and fully confidential. You can share the details of your case without any obligation to retain the firm, and nothing you share will be disclosed without your permission. The consultation is an opportunity for you to understand your rights, learn about the strength of your potential claim, and ask questions — all at no cost to you.
Injured by Defective Railroad Equipment? Call Us Today.
If you or a loved one has suffered injuries due to a defective locomotive handbrake or any other railroad equipment failure, contact Doyle Dennis Avery LLP and Sara Youngdahl of The Youngdahl Law Firm, P.C. now. We fight for railroad workers — No Win, No Fee.