Law firms file claims for rail workers sickened by toxic exposure
Grant & Eisenhofer and Poolson|Oden have filed claims for hundreds of railroad workers exposed to toxins, alleging Norfolk Southern failed to protect them. The complaints cite violations of the Federal Locomotive Inspection Act and seek compensation under FELA.

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Grant & Eisenhofer and Poolson|Oden have filed a wave of claims under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) on behalf of hundreds of railroad workers who developed cancer and other serious illnesses after decades of occupational exposure to toxic substances. The legal action targets Norfolk Southern Railway, alleging the company failed to protect workers from hazards including diesel exhaust, benzene, creosote, silica dust, asbestos, herbicides, pesticides, and airborne heavy metals. The filings aim to hold the company accountable and secure compensation for affected workers and their families.
The first claim, filed by Charlie Hunter in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (Case No. 260701694), alleges that Norfolk Southern knew or should have known of the cancer risks posed by these exposures for decades. The complaint cites industry proceedings from the 1950s and 1960s and epidemiological research dating back over a century. It further alleges the company violated the Federal Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) by failing to maintain adequate ventilation and exhaust filtration in its locomotives, allowing diesel fumes to accumulate at hazardous levels.
The workers represented include conductors, engineers, carmen, machinists, welders, and track laborers who spent 20 to 40 years keeping freight trains running. Many only learned of the dangers after receiving life-changing diagnoses. Attorneys Adam Gomez and M. Elizabeth Graham of Grant & Eisenhofer, along with Carisa German-Oden and Daniel J. Poolson, Jr. of Poolson|Oden, stated that Norfolk Southern owed workers a basic duty to protect them and failed in that duty repeatedly.
The complaint highlights a pattern of prioritizing operations and cost over worker safety, a trend illustrated by the 2023 toxic train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. The legal teams argue that Norfolk Southern failed to warn workers, monitor exposure levels, or provide basic protective equipment such as respirators. Additional filings on behalf of railroad workers are expected in the coming weeks.
| Key Details | Information |
|---|---|
| Legal Basis | Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) of 1908 |
| Primary Defendant | Norfolk Southern Railway |
| Alleged Violations | Failure to warn, monitor exposure, provide protective equipment; violation of Federal Locomotive Inspection Act |
| Hazardous Substances | Diesel exhaust, benzene, creosote, silica dust, asbestos, herbicides, pesticides, airborne heavy metals |
| First Case Filed | Hunter v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, No. 260701694 |
How will the outcome of these FELA claims influence Norfolk Southern's financial reserves and insurance premiums moving forward?
Could these legal actions prompt stricter federal enforcement of the Locomotive Inspection Act regarding ventilation standards?
Will this wave of litigation lead to industry-wide changes in safety protocols and the provision of personal protective equipment for railroad workers?

























