Injured Railroad Worker Wins $3,000,000 Verdict, but Missouri Appeal Cuts Recovery

An injured railroad worker won a $3 million jury verdict after a truck-and-train collision in a rail yard, but a Missouri appeal left him with far less. In Inglis v. BNSF Railway Co., No. WD87866 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. Mar. 31, 2026), the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment that cut the worker’s recovery to $900,000 after the jury assigned him 70 percent of the fault.

For injured workers, that made this a mixed-to-bad result. The opinion matters because it tackles a recurring issue in railroad injury litigation under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act, or FELA: when does a railroad’s argument about an employee’s own conduct count as valid contributory negligence, and when does it cross the line into the forbidden defense of assumption of risk?

What Happened in the Rail Yard

According to the opinion, Ronnie Inglis was working for BNSF as a truck driver in the maintenance department when he and an unfamiliar crew were sent to pick up a section of rail for an urgent repair near Parkville, Missouri. To leave the yard and reach Highway 45, the crew had to drive a section truck across a siding track and two main-line tracks before entering the highway.

Inglis claimed the route was unreasonably unsafe. He alleged the stop sign was too far from the crossing area, the ground between the tracks was broken down and uneven, there was not enough space to stop safely between tracks without fouling one of them, and the apron leading to the highway was too short to let a driver stop and study traffic without remaining too close to the tracks.

As Inglis drove across the east main line track and toward the apron, a northbound train struck the rear passenger side of the section truck. He sued BNSF under FELA, alleging the railroad had failed to provide a reasonably safe place to work and that the collision caused severe and permanent injuries.

Why the Worker Lost Most of the Verdict

The case went to trial in October 2024. The jury found Inglis had suffered $3 million in damages, but it also found him 70 percent contributorily negligent. That reduced the award to $900,000.

On appeal, Inglis argued that the trial court should never have let the jury consider BNSF’s contributory-negligence instruction. His position was that BNSF was really trying to blame him for facing the very dangers the railroad had created in the rail yard, which would amount to assumption of risk rather than contributory negligence.

Why the Court of Appeals Rejected Inglis’s Argument

The Western District affirmed. The court explained that FELA eliminated assumption of risk as a defense, but it did not eliminate contributory negligence. Under that distinction, a railroad cannot reduce a worker’s recovery simply by arguing that the worker accepted the dangers of the job. But the railroad can still argue that the worker acted carelessly and added new danger to the situation.

Here, the court concluded there was enough evidence for the jury to consider whether Inglis failed to keep a proper lookout for oncoming trains and failed to yield. The opinion points to BNSF operating rules requiring employees to stay alert, take the safe course when in doubt, expect train movement on any track in any direction, and look for and yield to trains when crossing tracks.

Because that evidence went to Inglis’s own alleged failure to use due care, the contributory-negligence instruction was permissible. The court also noted that the jury had been specifically instructed not to treat the case as one involving assumption of risk.

Why This Case Matters

Inglis is a useful reminder that even in a worker-protection statute like FELA, comparative-fault principles can still have a major effect on the bottom line. A plaintiff may prove that workplace conditions were unsafe and still lose a large share of the verdict if the jury also believes the plaintiff failed to act prudently in the moment.

From an injured-worker perspective, this was not a favorable appellate result. The court did not wipe out the worker’s claim entirely, but it did approve the instruction that let the jury assign 70 percent of the blame to him. That is the kind of ruling defendants can use to argue for steep reductions in otherwise substantial injury verdicts.

For readers following serious negligence and injury cases more broadly, Henderson Law Firm’s St. Louis personal injury lawyers page offers background on how fault and damages issues can shape recovery even when liability is contested.

Takeaway

The practical lesson from Inglis v. BNSF Railway Co. is that this was a bad outcome for injured workers on the damages issue, even though the worker had already convinced a jury that he was seriously harmed. Missouri courts will still allow juries to slash recovery in a FELA case when there is evidence the injured worker failed to keep a lookout, follow safety rules, or otherwise use reasonable care for his own safety.