Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, February 19, 1991 TAG: 9102190409
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Fortunately, a majority of committee members voted the other way.
As it stands, an obscure loophole in the civil code, unique to this state and inserted amid suspicious circumstances, has been squeezing Virginia's railroads. Under the existing law, railroad workers can bring personal-injury cases against their employers in any Virginia city where the company does business (for example, has tracks).
Judges aren't allowed, in effect, to send cases back where they belong, to a more convenient and proper forum - say, where the injury took place. They can't dismiss a case even if the claimant lives outside Virginia and the injury occurred hundreds of miles away.
The issue may seem a legalistic fine point, but it carries consequences. Juries in Portsmouth and Norfolk, it seems, have developed reputations for generosity to railroad employees. Perhaps it's hostility to big business, or to railroad management in particular. Maybe it's sympathy for unions, or a general tendency to award higher-than-average damages. Whatever the reason, these cities' courts have become, in one Virginia judge's words, a "happy hunting ground" for personal-injury suits.
As a result, suits against Norfolk Southern and CSX have flooded courts in the two cities. Between 1987 and 1990, NS and CSX faced 285 out-of-state employee actions, 263 of which were filed in Portsmouth and Norfolk. The total damages exceeded $40 million. Most of that, of course, is passed on to railroad customers via higher prices.
In every state but Virginia, judges could and probably would dismiss a suit if the injury, claimant and all the witnesses are out-of-state. It violates common law and common sense to allow claimants to scour the nation for the most favorable juries. But that is what's happening.
Indeed, the mayor of Portsmouth wrote to legislators supporting the law on the basis of its economic benefits! The influx of witnesses, attorneys and other interested parties from around the country "has brought a substantial number of customers" to local hotels, motels, restaurants and "other businesses," wrote the mayor.
Other businesses presumably include the Portsmouth law partnership headed by former state Sen. Willard Moody. Moody has built a successful practice on railroad injury cases and has won a lion's share of the attorneys' fees.
Maybe it's just coincidence that he was an influential party leader - chairman of the Senate Democratic Caucus and the Senate Rules Committee - in 1978, when House legislators snuck into the code the provision that has proved his golden egg. Meantime, Moody has hired several lobbyists to oppose restoration of the law to its rightful, pre-1978 condition.
Opponents of restoration say it would hurt working people. They must not mean Virginia working people. Judges in Virginia now have the authority to transfer cases filed by state residents to a more convenient or proper jurisdiction elsewhere in the state. They're only denied authority to apply the traditional practices of venue transfers when an out-of-state claim is involved.
Thus, the current code, defended by Cranwell and Woodrum, gives out-of-state workers shopping for a friendly legal forum an advantage that Virginia workers do not have.
The offending provision aims not to benefit workers so much as to enrich a few lawyers. The state Senate has passed the bill that would fix it. The House should follow suit.
by CNB