Railroad Accident Attorneys in Columbia, SC

Despite the fact that trains are one of the most archaic – and slowest – forms of transportation for the movement of people, animals, and products, they are still used frequently throughout the United States. In South Carolina, railroads and the railcars that use them are an essential part of our infrastructure and economy, transporting tons of consumer goods, and many people, on a regular basis.

But, railroads also present serious hazards, and more often than they should.  Cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians are struck by trains in railroad crossing accidents every year. Railroad crossing accidents are the types of train accidents most often associated with injuries and fatalities to humans, other types of railroad accidents could result in much greater property and economic damages (i.e. derailments).

If you are involved in a railroad accident in South Carolina and suffer injuries or property damage as a result, working with the experienced South Carolina railroad accident lawyers at the Peake & Fowler Law Firm, P.A. can be integral to recouping the full amount of damages you are owed.

Types and Causes of Railroad Accidents

There are many different types and causes of railroad accidents in South Carolina. As stated above, railroad accidents involving the crossing of one vehicle or person and a train are often the most devastating; these may occur because the individual tries to beat the train, becomes stuck on the track, doesn’t look before crossing, or fails to heed the warnings of posted signs or crossing arms, resulting in a collision.

Railroad crossing accidents aren’t the only type of train accidents. Other types of accidents are: A train and another object or vehicle (not at a crossing), derailments, and fires and explosions involving both passenger trains and freight trains.

These accident types have many different causes. Some of the top causes of railroad accidents include:

• Lack of warnings at railroad crossings;
• Defective warning lights or railroad crossing arms;
• Train operator negligence, i.e. distraction, intoxication, or fatigue;
• Falling onto tracks;
• Driver error (i.e. misjudging the distance of the train, intoxication, etc.);
• Defective tracks;
• Failure to maintain tracks, train/train engine, warnings, etc.;
• Miscommunication (i.e. sending two trains on the same track in opposite direct, heading towards one another).

A train accident could also be caused because a vehicle breaks down or stalls on the tracks, or because the negligent driver of another vehicle hits a car, pushing that car onto the tracks.

Liability for Train Accidents 

The Foundation of Negligence and the Duty of Care

Liability for a train accident depends entirely on the legal principle of negligence—the failure to exercise a reasonable amount of care that a prudent person would exercise under the same circumstances. Train accidents, due to their immense scale, speed, and potential for catastrophic injury, demand an exceptionally high standard of care from all involved parties.

What is considered “reasonable” is dependent upon the party and the situation. For example, it would be unreasonable for a train operator to be driving after consuming any alcohol; unreasonable for a city or rail company to not maintain rail crossing warning signals; unreasonable for a driver to increase their speed – rather than reducing their speed – when approaching a railway crossing; and unreasonable for a manufacturing company to design or manufacture a railcar or track with a defect. If a party breached the duty of care that they owed to others (i.e., the duty of care to operate their vehicle reasonably, manufacture a safe and effective product, etc.), and this breach of duty of care led to the accident, they can be held liable.

To successfully establish a negligence claim, four core elements must be proven by the injured party (the plaintiff):

1. Duty: The defendant owed a legal duty of care to the plaintiff.
2. Breach: The defendant breached or violated that duty of care.
3. Causation: The defendant’s breach of duty was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
4. Damages: The plaintiff suffered actual, measurable harm or losses as a result.

The following sections will examine the specific duties of care owed by the various parties potentially liable in a railroad accident.

Identifying Potentially Liable Parties

In the complex environment of rail operations, multiple entities often share responsibility for safety. Determining liability requires a meticulous investigation into the specific actions and failures that contributed to the incident. Potentially liable parties in a railroad accident include:

• The rail company (the owner and operator of the line and trains);
• An individual driver (a person operating a vehicle at a crossing);
• A train operator or their employer (the direct personnel responsible for the train’s movement);
• A manufacturer of a defective part (the company that designed or built the equipment); or
• A governmental body or municipality (the entity responsible for maintaining public crossings or nearby roads).

The Paramount Role of the Rail Company and Operator

The railroad company is the central figure in any liability analysis. As a common carrier transporting goods and sometimes passengers, they are typically held to the highest standard of care, ensuring the safety of the public both on and off their tracks. The company’s responsibility is often established through the concept of vicarious liability, which means the employer is held responsible for the negligent acts of its employees (the train operators and maintenance crews) committed within the scope of their employment.

Operational Negligence of the Train Operator

Train operators owe a duty to operate the train safely and prudently. A breach of this duty can take many forms. Exceeding posted or regulated speed limits is a common breach, especially when approaching crossings or areas with known maintenance issues. Furthermore, the operator must maintain a proper lookout. If an accident occurs because an operator was distracted, using a prohibited electronic device, or failed to sound the warning horn as required by federal law, the operator and, by extension, the rail company may be found negligent.

Failures in Maintenance and Safety Protocols

Beyond the actions of individual employees, the rail company is directly responsible for maintaining the safety of its entire infrastructure. This includes:

• Track Integrity: Regular inspection and repair of rails, ties, and ballast to prevent derailments. A failure to detect and fix a fatigued rail section or a weakened bridge could constitute negligence.
• Rolling Stock Maintenance: Ensuring that all trains—locomotives and railcars—are in safe working order, particularly focusing on brake systems, couplers, and lighting.
• Fatigue Management: Railroads must adhere to strict Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations regarding the hours of service for their employees. If a company pushes an operator past legal limits, leading to fatigue and error, they can be held liable for the ensuing accident.

Manufacturer Liability: Defective Parts and Design

When a train accident is caused not by human error but by mechanical failure, the manufacturer of the faulty equipment may be liable under the legal theory of product liability. This theory holds companies responsible for placing defective products into the stream of commerce. In many jurisdictions, including South Carolina, manufacturers can be held strictly liable, meaning the plaintiff does not need to prove negligence, but only that the product was defective and caused injury.

Manufacturer liability generally stems from three types of defects:

1. Manufacturing Defects: A flaw in the product that occurred during the assembly process (e.g., a critical weld on a coupler broke because of impure metal used in the manufacturing run).
2. Design Defects: The product was inherently unsafe as designed, even if manufactured perfectly (e.g., a brake system design that consistently fails under certain common operating conditions).
3. Failure to Warn: The manufacturer failed to provide adequate instructions or warnings about non-obvious dangers associated with the product’s use. This is particularly relevant for specialized rail equipment requiring complex maintenance.

A defect in a single part—a wheel axle, a faulty signaling chip, or a defective brake pad—can initiate a chain of events leading to a massive derailment or collision.

Governmental and Municipal Liability

Not all train accidents occur on open tracks; many happen at grade crossings, where a railway intersects with a public road. At these crossings, the city, county, or state government (the municipality) often shares responsibility with the rail company for public safety.

The municipality’s duty of care typically involves ensuring proper traffic control devices are installed, maintained, and clearly visible. Negligence in this context might include:

• Warning Signal Failure: Failing to repair broken railway crossing gates or flashing lights in a timely manner after being notified of the fault.
• Visibility Obstruction: Allowing excessive vegetation, tree growth, or poorly placed signage to obstruct a driver’s view of the approaching tracks.
• Poor Road Design: Creating a crossing approach that is inherently dangerous due to poor sight lines or confusing road markings.

However, pursuing a claim against a government entity is often complicated by Sovereign Immunity laws, which protect governmental bodies from many lawsuits. While many states waive this immunity under specific conditions (such as for negligence in maintaining public property), the rules for filing these claims are extremely strict and must be followed precisely.

Individual Driver Liability and Trespassers

Railroad accidents often involve vehicles at grade crossings. In these cases, the individual driver of the car owes a duty of reasonable care to themselves and the train’s occupants. A breach of this duty is common and includes:

• Failing to stop at a marked crossbuck or stop sign.
• Driving around lowered gates or ignoring flashing warning lights.
• Failing to stop, look, and listen before attempting to cross the tracks, even when warning devices are present.

If the driver’s negligence is found to be the sole or primary cause of the accident, the driver (or their insurance) may be liable for damages sustained by the train operator, passengers, or the rail company itself.

The Problem of Trespassers

Another category of individual liability involves trespassers—people who enter railroad property or walk on the tracks without permission. Railroads generally owe a very low duty of care to adult trespassers, typically only to avoid willfully or wantonly injuring them. However, for children, the law may apply the Attractive Nuisance doctrine. Because children are often drawn to trains and rail yards (an “attractive nuisance”), the railroad company has a higher duty to secure its property, install fencing, and post clear warnings to prevent children from accessing dangerous equipment or tracks.

Understanding Proximate Cause in Train Accidents

Causation is often the most challenging element to prove in a complex train accident. It requires establishing two things: actual cause (the “but for” test—the injury would not have happened but for the defendant’s breach) and proximate cause (legal causation).

Proximate cause is about foreseeability. The injury must be a natural, direct, and foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligent act. For instance, if a rail company negligently leaves a track switch unsecured, and a train derails as a direct result, hitting a nearby building, the damage to the building is a foreseeable consequence. However, if that same unsecured switch causes a brief delay, and a passenger who was delayed then gets in an unrelated car accident two hours later, the train delay is not the proximate cause of the car accident. The chain of causation was broken by the intervening event.

Comparative Fault Laws in South Carolina and Railroad Accidents

Fault in a railroad accident is not always the fault of one party. In some cases, two or more parties may be partially to blame for a railroad accident. When this is the case, the laws of the jurisdiction where the accident occurred determine how damages are calculated.

In South Carolina, the legal doctrine followed is Modified Comparative Fault. This system allows a plaintiff (the injured party) to recover damages even if they were partially at fault for the accident, subject to a critical limitation:

The 50 Percent Rule

A plaintiff will still be able to recoup damages so long as their percentage of fault is not greater than 50 percent. If the plaintiff is found to be 51 percent or more at fault, they are legally barred from recovering any damages from the other parties. This is the “modified” aspect of the law. If the plaintiff’s fault is 50 percent or less, they can still recover, but their awarded damages will be reduced proportionally.

Applying the Rule: A Practical Example

Consider the following example:

A driver’s vehicle is hit by a train at a railway crossing. The driver suffers serious injuries, and incurs $100,000 in medical expenses. After a thorough investigation, it is determined that three things contributed to the accident: the city’s failure to maintain the warning signals at the railway crossing, the train operator’s failure to notice an approaching vehicle and failure to slow the train, and the driver’s (victim’s) failure to reasonably look for a train before crossing.

The apportionment of fault is determined by a judge or jury: The city is found to be 50 percent at fault, and both the train operator and driver of the car are found to be 25 percent at fault.

In this scenario:

• The driver (plaintiff) is found to be 25 percent at fault. Because this is less than 50 percent, the driver can still recover damages.
• The total fault of the defendants (City and Train Operator) is 75 percent.
• The driver’s total damages of $100,000 will be reduced by their 25 percent share of fault, meaning their recoverable damages are reduced to $75,000.
• The City would be liable for $50,000 (50 percent of the total damages), and the train operator (or train company under the theory of vicarious liability) would be liable for $25,000 (25 percent of the total damages). As such, the driver would only be able to recover $75,000, or 75 percent of their damages.

This comparative fault system ensures that responsibility and compensation are distributed fairly based on the degree to which each party’s negligence contributed to the crash.

Damages Recoverable in a Train Accident Claim

When liability is established, the final step is determining the extent of the financial compensation, or damages, the injured party is entitled to recover. Damages are generally categorized as economic, non-economic, and, in rare cases, punitive.

Economic Damages

These are objective, quantifiable losses that can be easily documented. They include:

• Medical Expenses: All past and future costs related to the injury, including hospital stays, surgeries, rehabilitation, medications, and therapeutic care.
• Lost Wages: Income lost from the inability to work due to the accident.
• Loss of Earning Capacity: Compensation for the permanent reduction in the victim’s ability to earn a living in the future.
• Property Damage: The cost to repair or replace damaged vehicles or property.

Non-Economic Damages

These are subjective and intended to compensate the victim for intangible losses that do not have a direct bill or invoice attached. They include:

• Pain and Suffering: Compensation for the physical discomfort and emotional anguish experienced.
• Emotional Distress: Damages for psychological injuries such as anxiety, depression, or PTSD resulting from the traumatic event.
• Loss of Consortium: Compensation awarded to the victim’s spouse for the loss of companionship, support, and relationship benefits.

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are not intended to compensate the victim for a loss, but rather to punish the defendant for extremely reckless, malicious, or willful behavior and to deter similar conduct in the future. These are only awarded in cases where the defendant’s negligence shows a conscious disregard for the safety of others, such as a rail company willfully ignoring repeated safety warnings or a train operator driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Such damages are relatively rare but can be substantial when awarded.

Comparative Fault Laws in South Carolina and Railroad Accidents

Fault in a railroad accident is not always the fault of one party. In some cases, two or more parties may be partially to blame for a railroad accident. When this is the case, each party will be responsible for their percentage of fault, and a plaintiff will still be able to recoup damages so long as their percentage of fault is not greater than 50 percent. Further, a plaintiff’s damages will be reduced in proportion to their degree of fault.

Consider the following example:

A driver’s vehicle is hit by a train at a railway crossing. The driver suffers serious injuries, and incurs $100,000 in medical expenses. After a thorough investigation, it is determined that three things contributed to the accident: the city’s failure to maintain the warning signals at the railway crossing, the train operator’s failure to notice an approaching vehicle and failure to slow the train, and the driver’s (victim’s) failure to reasonably look for a train before crossing. The city is found to be 50 percent at fault, and both the train operator and driver of the car are found to be 25 percent at fault. As such, the city would be liable for $50,000, and the train operator (or train company under the theory of vicarious liability) would be liable for $25,000. As such, the driver would only be able to recover $75,000, or 75 percent of their damages.

Don’t Wait to File Your Claim

If you are injured in a railroad accident of any type, do not wait to hire an attorney and file your claim. The statute of limitations for personal injury claims in South Carolina is three years from the date of injury. If you are filing a claim against the government, the South Carolina Tort Claims Act states that the action must be commenced within two years, or it is forever barred.

Contact the Peake & Fowler Law Firm, P.A. Today

The injuries incurred in a railroad accident have the potential to be very serious, or even fatal. If you or your loved one is involved in a railroad accident in South Carolina, the experienced railroad accident attorneys at Peake & Fowler want to meet with you. We can help you to understand the claims process and liability, determine the amount of damages you have suffered, file an effective claim and negotiate a fair settlement amount.

We are here for you, and will always put your needs first. Located in Columbia and serving clients in surrounding areas, we are happy to travel to your location for your consultation if you are unable to make it to ours. Just call our personal injury attorneys to request your free consultation.