A jury deliberated only two hours Tuesday before finding that the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. was not at fault in the April 14, 1983, Thistle landslide.
The verdict means that the plaintiffs, 15 Thistle landowners who filed a $1 million lawsuit contending railroad negligence led to the landslide, will get no money out of their suit.After closing arguments from both sides Tuesday, District Judge Cullen Y. Christensen instructed jurors and sequestered them in the jury room.
Plaintiffs' attorney Allen Young said jurors should consider four important questions: whether a slope cut into the landslide material by the railroad led to the disastrous landslide and flood; whether the cut slope presented a risk or potential hazard; whether the railroad should have recognized possible hazards; and whether the railroad was negligent in handling possible hazards.
"Was the cut slope - 50 feet wide and 50 feet long - which could fill the BYU football stadium - a cause of the Thistle landslide?" Young asked. "The experts we've presented have confirmed that it could have, I believe."
Railroad employees and experts warned officials that the material was heading for landslide potential, but the warnings went unheeded, said Young.
Defense attorney Michael Richman countered that experts James Slosson and Norbert Morganstern testified last week that the landslide originated from the top of the material, not from the cut slope, and that material sliding under the hill caused the disastrous flooding.
"The plaintiffs must prove, with a preponderance of evidence, that the cut slope was not just a cause, but a cause in fact," Richman said. "By that I mean that without the cut slope, the landslide could not have occurred. We've never claimed that the cut slope didn't affect the stability of the hill."
Richman said landslide potential was created as long as 15,000 years ago when Lake Bonneville dried up and left the hill in landslide condition. He said the area has had landslides since.
"These ancient landslides occurred without any intervention of man, at least we don't see any presence of man around that time," Richman said. "They occurred as a natural phenomenon."
Richman earlier had questioned whether the cut slope, far smaller than the landslide area, could possibly have prevented material from sliding. After calculating how much material would fill a football stadium, Young said "Common sense will tell you that nine feet of material can't hold back five miles."
Also, D&RGW has actually been filling the cut slope area, and no material has been removed since the first three cuts (made in the 1880s, 1908 and the 1930s), Richman said. "It would be possible to see negligence if the cut slope wasn't maintained but it has been. The only sliding that occurred there was surfacial."
Young said plaintiff experts Blaine Leonard and Joseph Olson proved that the cut slope led to a progressive failure of landslide material, meaning the slide originated at the bottom and progressed upward, documenting railroad negligence.
"They've kept pulling material out of the cut slope, year after year, and it's weakened the stability," Young said.