The Baker Verdict: A Landmark FELA Diesel Exhaust Case That Still Matters Today
Long before diesel exhaust was officially recognized as a known human carcinogen, a Georgia jury heard evidence that Norfolk Southern knew locomotive crews were breathing diesel exhaust inside their cabs. The resulting verdict in Baker v. Norfolk Southern became one of the earliest and most significant FELA cases connecting railroad diesel exhaust exposure to cancer, and it continues to influence occupational cancer litigation today.
Phil Baker worked approximately eighteen years as a Norfolk Southern locomotive engineer before developing fatal nasopharyngeal cancer. His widow alleged the railroad failed to provide a reasonably safe workplace by allowing diesel exhaust to repeatedly infiltrate locomotive cabs, despite years of employee complaints. At trial, internationally recognized occupational health expert Dr. Samuel Epstein testified that Baker’s prolonged exposure to diesel exhaust was a substantial contributing cause of his cancer. After hearing the evidence, a Bibb County, Georgia jury returned a verdict exceeding $5.7 million in favor of Baker’s family.
Norfolk Southern appealed, but the Georgia Court of Appeals largely upheld the jury’s findings. The court concluded there was sufficient evidence that diesel exhaust entered locomotive cabs, that the railroad had notice of the problem, and that violations of the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act could support liability under FELA. The only issue requiring a new trial involved the calculation of damages, not the railroad’s responsibility for exposing Baker to diesel exhaust.
What makes Baker even more compelling today is that it was decided before much of the modern scientific research existed. In 2012, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, formally classified diesel engine exhaust as a Group 1 known human carcinogen, concluding there is sufficient evidence that diesel exhaust causes lung cancer in humans. Today’s FELA plaintiffs therefore rely on decades of additional epidemiological, industrial hygiene, and toxicological research that simply was not available when the Baker jury reached its verdict.
For retired railroad workers and their families, the Baker case remains an important reminder that concerns about diesel exhaust did not begin recently. Railroad employees had been reporting diesel fumes inside locomotive cabs for years, and juries were evaluating those claims decades before today’s scientific consensus emerged. While every case depends on its own facts, modern plaintiffs often have the benefit of stronger scientific evidence than ever before. Combined with the legal protections afforded by FELA, that evolving body of research continues to provide an important avenue for railroad workers diagnosed with lung cancer after years of occupational diesel exhaust exposure.