For much of the 20th century, asbestos was widely used throughout the railroad environment. Its heat-resistant properties made it a go-to material for insulating locomotives, brake systems, boilers, and railcar components. Workers such as machinists, pipefitters, electricians, and laborers were routinely exposed while installing, repairing, or removing asbestos-containing materials. In many cases, these tasks generated visible dust clouds, which workers inhaled daily without adequate respiratory protection.
At the same time, diesel-powered locomotives — introduced on a large scale beginning in the 1940s and 1950s — brought a new and insidious hazard: diesel exhaust. Railroad workers operating or working near locomotives were exposed to a complex mixture of gases and fine particulate matter. Diesel exhaust contains known carcinogens, including benzene, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. In rail yards, engine houses, and maintenance shops, poor ventilation often compounded the level of exposure.
The latency period for diseases associated with these substances is long. Mesothelioma, a cancer almost exclusively linked to asbestos exposure, can take 20 to 50 years to manifest. Lung cancer and other malignancies associated with diesel exhaust may also develop decades after initial exposure. This delay has meant that many railroad workers only began to connect their illnesses to their employment long after retirement.
Litigation involving these claims has largely proceeded under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), a statute enacted in 1908 to provide a remedy for injured railroad workers. Unlike typical workers’ compensation systems, FELA requires plaintiffs to prove that the railroad was negligent and that this negligence played a role—however slight—in causing the injury or disease. In asbestos and diesel cases, this often centers on whether railroads knew or should have known about the hazards and failed to implement adequate safety measures.
Plaintiffs in these cases typically argue that railroads had access to decades of industrial hygiene literature and internal knowledge warning of the dangers of asbestos dust and diesel emissions. They point to a lack of warnings, inadequate ventilation systems, and the failure to provide protective equipment as evidence of negligence. In some cases, internal company documents and expert testimony have been used to demonstrate that safer alternatives or protective measures were available but not implemented.
Railroad companies, in turn, often challenge both causation and the extent of exposure. Defense arguments frequently emphasize alternative risk factors, such as smoking history, and question whether the plaintiff’s specific job duties resulted in sufficient exposure to cause disease. In diesel exhaust cases in particular, defendants may argue that scientific consensus on causation developed relatively recently, complicating claims that earlier conduct was negligent.
Despite these defenses, numerous cases have resulted in substantial verdicts and settlements in favor of railroad workers and their families. These outcomes have not only provided compensation but have also helped bring broader attention to occupational health risks in the industry.
Today, regulations and workplace practices have evolved. The use of asbestos has been heavily restricted, and diesel emissions are more closely monitored and controlled. Yet the litigation continues, driven by the long latency of these diseases and the enduring impact of historical exposures.
The story of asbestos and diesel exhaust in the railroad industry is ultimately one of delayed consequences — where decisions made decades ago continue to surface in courtrooms today. It underscores the critical importance of workplace safety, transparency, and accountability in industries where the risks are not always immediately visible, but no less profound.
For decades, our attorneys have represented major corporations, like railroad companies, giving us a deep understanding of how these organizations operate, defend claims, and evaluate risk. That experience now uniquely positions us to advocate for individuals harmed by occupational exposures. We know where to look, what questions to ask, and how these cases are built from the inside out — allowing us to effectively pursue justice for railroad employees who suffered the consequences of prolonged exposure to asbestos, diesel exhaust, and other toxic substances over the course of their careers.