homeWelcome, sign in or click here to subscribe.login
     


 

 

Opinion


print  email to a friend  reprints add to mydjc  
Andrew Bergh
Andrew Bergh

June 8, 2000

Little Yermo, home of the great train dispute

By ANDREW BERGH

The name conjures up images of a picturesque seaside town on some gem of a Mediterranean isle. A place where time stands still, inhabitants shun the outside world, and modern contrivances like cell phones don’t exist.

But that’s not the Yermo I’ve got in mind.

I’m referring to the Southern Californian version of Yermo – an obscure outpost in San Bernardino County that depends on a railroad terminal for its very existence. A city synonymous with deafening train noise and choking engine fumes. And the city that provides the backdrop for our case du jour, Jones v. Union Pacific Railroad Company.

July 1991 is the starting point for our Great Train Dispute.

That’s when Charles and Shirley Jones bought their home on the outskirts of Yermo. The couple hopefully got a sweet deal, as their property abutted railroad tracks that were used both day and night.

But privacy, too, was a factor, as the Joneses, along with their neighbor, Elmer Bricker, were the lone occupants of Yermo. That’s right, only three full-time residents within the entire city limits. So take away its railroad terminal, and you likely wouldn’t even find Yermo on the map.

Although Charles and Shirley didn’t mind an occasional train or two, the status quo took a turn for the worse in September 1996 when a federal agency approved a merger between the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific railroad companies. Almost immediately, there were major train congestion problems in Yermo.

Things got so bad that by June 1997, Union Pacific employees parked idling train engines in front of the Joneses’ home. So instead of mostly peace and quiet, Charles and Shirley experienced almost round-the-clock racket. The noise included not only idling train engines, which were sometimes left running days at a time, but the incessant blowing of train horns.

After running out of patience, the sleep-deprived Joneses (plus Elmer) complained about the train noise and engine fumes to Union Pacific and various governmental agencies. The railroad company responded by issuing an order in February 1998 that barred its train engines from being left unattended in front of the Joneses’ house for more than an hour.

But the train noise continued unabated, as Union Pacific employees, who turned verbally abusive soon after the Joneses lodged their complaints, essentially ignored the order.

With no options left, Charles and Shirley sued the railroad company in June 1998.

The Joneses alleged, among other things, that idling trains were parked in front of their home for lengthy periods of time, and that engineers blew the train horns solely to harass them. The homeowners sought damages for their resulting depression, anger, frustration, and other emotional and physical ailments from the loud train noise and engine fumes.

Now as far as lawsuits go, the Yermo residents’ claims, even if successful, weren’t going to put any dent in Union Pacific profits.

But apparently wanting to avoid a bad precedent that would encourage similar claims, the defendant moved to dismiss the Joneses’ suit on the ground it was preempted by several federal laws. (Under the preemption rule, claims brought under state law are generally disallowed if they conflict with or frustrate a federal statute.)

The railroad company argued, for example, that the Joneses’ claims were preempted by the federal Noise Control Act of 1972. (In case you’re unfamiliar with that law, the NCA regulates maximum noise levels for rail cars engaged in interstate commerce.)

When the little guy sues Big Business, it’s usually an uphill battle. So maybe Charles and Shirley weren’t that surprised when the judge sided with Union Pacific and tossed their claims out of court.

To their credit, however, the Joneses refused to throw in the towel, instead choosing to appeal. And about seven weeks ago, the couple finally got good news from a California appeals court.

Let’s make that semi-good news.

First of all, the court agreed with Union Pacific that if its activities were safety related, or if they furthered the company’s operations, then Charles and Shirley were out of luck.

But the court also said that if the activities in question – train noise caused by idling engines, unnecessary horn blowing, and harassment by Union Pacific employees – had nothing to do with railroad safety or operations, then the Joneses’ claims would not be preempted.

The bottom line is that win, lose, or draw, Charles and Shirley will have their day in court – and maybe even get to the bank if they prove all their allegations.

Who knows? If they really hit the jackpot, the Joneses might even be able to afford a house on the right side of the tracks.

But that sure won’t be anywhere in Yermo.


Seattle lawyer Andrew Bergh, a former prosecutor and insurance defense attorney, now limits his practice to plaintiff's personal injury cases. He fields questions via email at andy@berghlaw.com.


Previous columns:



Email or user name:
Password:
 
Forgot password? Click here.