Doyle Dennis Avery LLP and Sara Youngdahl of The Youngdahl Law Firm, P.C. have filed a lawsuit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) against Union Pacific Railroad Company on behalf of a new trainee who suffered permanent leg injuries — including a torn ACL, meniscus damage, and related injuries requiring surgery — when his foreman authorized him to dismount from moving equipment that was traveling at an unsafe speed. The trainee, who had been on the job for only three weeks, was following explicit instructions from his supervisor when the injury occurred. The lawsuit contends that Union Pacific’s negligent supervision, inadequate training, and failure to maintain safe working conditions directly caused these serious and preventable injuries.
New railroad trainees are among the most vulnerable workers in the industry. They have not yet developed the experience and instincts that allow veteran workers to recognize when a supervisor’s instructions are unsafe. They are taught to follow their foreman’s guidance — that is the entire structure of railroad trainee programs. When Union Pacific places trainees under the supervision of foremen who authorize unsafe actions — and then fails to implement the safety systems that would prevent those authorizations — the resulting injuries are entirely the railroad’s fault, not the new employee’s.
Firms Representing the Injured Trainee: 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 March 2025 Incident: An Inexperienced Worker, an Unsafe Order
In March 2025, our client was a new employee of Union Pacific, working as a trainee in El Paso, Texas. He had been on the job for only three weeks — barely enough time to become familiar with the basic routines of railroad switching work, let alone to develop the experience needed to independently evaluate the safety of specific operating conditions.
During the performance of railcar switching duties, our client was working under the direct supervision of a foreman who was controlling the equipment remotely. The task required our client to dismount from the moving equipment using an onboard ladder. Before doing so — acting with exactly the caution a careful new employee should exercise — he asked his supervisor for permission to dismount. His foreman, who had direct visibility of the equipment and could see its speed, authorized the dismount.
What our client did not know — and what his supervisor should not have permitted — was that the equipment was moving at a speed that made dismounting unsafe. When our client stepped off the equipment in reliance on his foreman’s explicit authorization, he immediately felt severe pain in his left leg. He was subsequently diagnosed with a torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), significant meniscus damage, and other serious leg injuries — all requiring surgical intervention.
This injury was entirely preventable. Our client did everything right: he paused, assessed the situation, and sought authorization from the person in authority — his foreman — before acting. He trusted the judgment of the person whose job it was to supervise his safety. That trust was betrayed, and our client paid for it with a serious, permanent injury.
Union Pacific’s Duty to Train and Protect New Employees
The Federal Employers’ Liability Act imposes a non-delegable duty on railroads to provide a reasonably safe workplace for all employees — including trainees. In fact, the presence of a new, inexperienced worker heightens the railroad’s obligations in important ways. A trainee who has been on the job for only three weeks cannot be expected to independently identify when equipment is moving too fast to safely dismount — especially when the person in supervisory authority over them affirmatively approves the action. Union Pacific must account for the inexperience of new hires in its safety programs, supervision protocols, and operational procedures.
Union Pacific’s FELA obligations with respect to new trainees include:
- Comprehensive and effective safety training: New employees must be trained not just on the mechanics of their duties, but on the safety standards and speed limits that govern specific operations like dismounting from moving equipment. Trainees who are not yet qualified to independently assess operational speeds must be given clear, enforceable guidelines — not left to rely on real-time judgment calls by supervisors who may be distracted or misinformed.
- Adequate supervision: Supervisors responsible for new trainees bear a heightened duty of care. When a foreman has real-time visibility of equipment speed and authorizes a dismount, that authorization carries enormous weight to an inexperienced worker who has been taught to follow supervisory direction. The foreman’s authorization must be made with full attention to safety standards — not casually or inattentively.
- Safe speed standards for dismounting: Union Pacific has internal operating rules and safety standards governing the conditions under which workers may safely dismount from moving equipment. When those standards are not enforced at the supervisory level, the resulting injuries are attributable to the railroad’s failure to implement and follow its own safety framework.
- Safe ground and equipment conditions: Beyond the speed of the equipment, the conditions at the point of dismount — including the condition of the ladder, the ground surface, and surrounding area — must be maintained to allow safe egress.
Specific Allegations Against Union Pacific
The lawsuit filed by Doyle Dennis Avery LLP and The Youngdahl Law Firm, P.C. asserts that Union Pacific was negligent in the following specific respects:
- Failure to maintain safe ground and equipment conditions: The conditions at the dismount location, including the speed of the moving equipment, were unsafe for dismounting, and Union Pacific failed to ensure these conditions met safety standards.
- Failure to properly train employees: Union Pacific failed to provide our client with adequate training on the speed and operational conditions that constitute safe dismounting parameters, leaving him without the information needed to independently assess the risk of the dismount he was authorized to make.
- Failure to properly supervise employees: The foreman who authorized the dismount failed to accurately assess the speed of the equipment and failed to apply Union Pacific’s own safety standards before giving authorization — reflecting a supervisory failure for which Union Pacific bears direct responsibility.
- Allowing an unsafe dismount from moving equipment: Union Pacific, through its supervisory personnel, permitted a new trainee to dismount from equipment moving at a speed that exceeded safe dismounting standards.
- Failure to implement and follow adequate safety procedures: Union Pacific failed to establish and enforce the specific operational protocols that would have prevented a foreman from authorizing an unsafe dismount, including clear speed limits for moving equipment dismounts and mandatory verification procedures.
- Failure to warn of dangerous working conditions: Union Pacific failed to adequately inform its trainees of the specific speed thresholds and conditions under which equipment dismounts are unsafe, depriving our client of the knowledge he would have needed to protect himself.
The Injuries and Their Impact
A torn ACL is one of the most serious and physically limiting knee injuries a person can sustain. The anterior cruciate ligament provides critical stability to the knee joint, and its rupture results in immediate pain, swelling, joint instability, and loss of function. In most cases involving active workers, surgical reconstruction of the ACL is required, followed by months of intensive physical therapy. Even with excellent surgical and rehabilitative care, many ACL injury patients experience lingering symptoms, limitations on high-impact activities, and an elevated risk of future knee problems including early-onset arthritis.
Our client also sustained meniscus damage — injury to the cartilage cushion in the knee — which compounds the severity of the ACL injury. Combined meniscus and ACL injuries often require complex surgical procedures and extended recovery timelines. They can result in permanent impairment that affects an individual’s ability to perform physically demanding work for years or for the remainder of their career.
Our client was just beginning his railroad career when this injury occurred. The physical and financial harm he has suffered — permanent impairment, surgical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and reduced earning capacity — is substantial. The lawsuit seeks to hold Union Pacific fully accountable for all of these losses, as the law requires.
Were you injured while working for a railroad, even as a new employee or trainee? You have FELA rights. Call us now.
(713) 571-1146About Doyle Dennis Avery LLP and The Youngdahl Law Firm, P.C.
Doyle Dennis Avery LLP — with attorneys Michael P. Doyle, Patrick M. Dennis, and Jeff Avery — is one of the nation’s leading personal injury firms focused on FELA railroad worker injury claims. With millions recovered for injured clients, the firm has demonstrated over and over that it has the knowledge, resources, and determination to win against the largest railroads in the country.
Sara Youngdahl of The Youngdahl Law Firm, P.C. brings specialized expertise in railroad law and FELA litigation to every case. Together, these firms fight to ensure that injured railroad workers — from veteran engineers to first-week trainees — receive the full compensation the law entitles them to.
Both firms handle FELA cases on a No Win, No Fee basis. Call (713) 571-1146 or toll-free at (888) 571-1001 for a free consultation about your rights.
Frequently Asked Questions: FELA Claims for New Railroad Employees and Trainees
Yes — absolutely. FELA protects all railroad employees from the very first day of employment, regardless of their experience level or how long they have worked for the railroad. In fact, when a worker is relatively new and inexperienced, the railroad’s duty of care is arguably heightened — because new employees cannot be expected to independently identify and push back against unsafe conditions or instructions the way a more experienced worker might. If anything, Union Pacific’s responsibility for our client’s injury is strengthened by the fact that he had been on the job for only three weeks when he was injured.
Yes. Following a supervisor’s instructions is not a bar to FELA recovery — in fact, it may actually strengthen your claim. When a worker follows an explicit instruction from a supervisor and is injured as a result, the railroad bears responsibility for the unsafe instruction its supervisory personnel gave. Under FELA, the railroad is responsible for the acts and omissions of its supervisors acting within the scope of their employment. An employee who was following orders is in a very different position than an employee who acted against instructions — and courts and juries recognize that difference.
The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is one of the four major ligaments that stabilize the knee joint. A torn ACL is a complete or partial rupture of this ligament, typically caused by sudden twisting or impact forces. For railroad workers, whose jobs require constant physical movement — walking on uneven surfaces, climbing on and off equipment, bending, lifting, and twisting — ACL damage is particularly devastating. The injury typically requires surgical reconstruction and months of physical therapy, with recovery timelines extending to a year or more. Even after excellent treatment, many patients experience persistent symptoms and limitations, along with an elevated risk of post-traumatic arthritis in the affected knee.
Under FELA, workers have certain rights regarding unsafe working conditions — including the right to refuse genuinely dangerous work. However, new employees often lack the experience to recognize when an order crosses the line from demanding to genuinely unsafe, particularly when the supervisor is the one who would be expected to make that assessment. When a trainee who has no basis to independently evaluate equipment speed asks their foreman — who is directly observing the equipment — whether it is safe to dismount, and the foreman says yes, that new worker is entitled to rely on that authorization. The resulting injury is attributable to the railroad’s failure of supervision, not the worker’s failure of judgment.
The FELA statute of limitations is three years from the date of injury. This deadline is strictly enforced and admits no exceptions for late discovery of the full extent of injuries or other circumstances. For an injury that occurred in March 2025, the lawsuit must be filed before March 2028. Despite the seemingly ample time, acting promptly is critical: evidence disappears quickly in railroad cases, and building a strong FELA claim requires thorough investigation that takes time. Contact a FELA attorney as soon as possible after your injury.
No. FELA explicitly abolished the defense of assumption of risk in railroad worker injury cases. A railroad cannot argue that an injured worker “assumed the risk” of an unsafe condition or instruction. This is one of the most important worker-protective provisions in FELA, and it directly applies in cases where workers are injured while following supervisor directions in the course of their normal duties.
Under FELA, you can recover: all past and future medical expenses (surgery, anesthesia, physical therapy, follow-up care, and any future treatment related to the injury), wages lost during recovery, loss of future earning capacity if the injury permanently affects your ability to work at the same level, past and future physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress, and permanent physical impairment. For a worker whose career is just beginning, the loss of future earning capacity can represent an especially significant component of damages if the injury limits the type of work they can perform going forward.
In your favor — yes, significantly. The fact that your supervisor — who was in a position to observe the equipment’s speed and who held authority over your safety — explicitly authorized the dismount is powerful evidence of Union Pacific’s negligence. The supervisor’s authorization is the railroad’s authorization; supervisory employees act as agents of the railroad, and the railroad is responsible for their negligent acts within the scope of their employment. An experienced FELA attorney will document and present this aspect of the case forcefully.
This argument inverts the basic logic of supervision. Union Pacific cannot have it both ways — it cannot require trainees to work under supervisory control and then argue that those trainees were wrong to follow the supervisor’s explicit authorization. A three-week trainee who asks for and receives authorization from an experienced foreman who can see the equipment’s speed is acting exactly as the railroad trained them to act. An experienced FELA attorney will expose the weakness of this argument and present the facts of the case in a way that is both compelling and fair to the injured worker.
Doyle Dennis Avery LLP and The Youngdahl Law Firm, P.C. represent FELA clients on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay no attorney’s fees unless the firms recover compensation for you. The contingency fee is a percentage of the recovery, agreed upon in advance. This arrangement removes all financial barriers to obtaining top-quality legal representation: you don’t need money to hire these firms, and they don’t get paid until you do. Initial consultations are always free and confidential.
Yes. FELA is a federal law that applies nationwide, and Doyle Dennis Avery LLP and The Youngdahl Law Firm, P.C. represent injured railroad workers throughout the country. The geographic location of your injury does not limit your ability to work with these firms. Whether you were injured in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, or any other state, these firms can evaluate your case and — if appropriate — represent you in pursuing your FELA rights. Contact them at (713) 571-1146 or (888) 571-1001 for a free consultation.
Injured While Working for a Railroad — Even as a New Employee? You Have Rights.
If you or a loved one was injured on the railroad — whether you’ve been working there for decades or just weeks — Doyle Dennis Avery LLP and Sara Youngdahl of The Youngdahl Law Firm, P.C. are ready to fight for the compensation you deserve. No Win, No Fee. Free consultation.