An attorney who spent the past two years representing veterans and spouses affected by the Nov. 15, 2012, parade and train wreck is predicting a favorable outcome for the remaining plaintiffs in the lawsuit if it moves to an appeals court.

Kevin Glasheen, an attorney for 26 of 43 plaintiffs in the train wreck lawsuit reached a settlement with defendant Union Pacific Railroad Co. on Jan. 16. He spoke with the Reporter-Telegram in an analyst capacity this past week, discussing how he thinks the next step of the lawsuit will turn out, now that he is no longer part of the case.

The jury trial is on the verge of an end in favor of UP, as previously reported.

The remaining plaintiffs still in the lawsuit -- widows and surviving family members of three deceased veterans -- plan to bring the case to the 11th Court of Appeals in Eastland and attempt to reverse all the claims against UP that presiding Judge James Rush threw out in the weeks before the trial.

"If you ask me, what do I think the chances that this get reversed on appeal and sent back for a trial on these issues, I think the chances are better than 90 percent," Glasheen said.

Glasheen based his prediction on the differences between a district court and an appeals court. District courts have a large caseload which usually do not involve complicated questions of law, while a court of appeals will have more staff and its judges are more “academic” minded, meaning they also do schorlarly research papers, he said.

For this case though, Glasheen did not discount the other 10 percent or less.

"He (Rush) may end up being right in appeal," Glasheen said. "Just because I think he's wrong doesn't mean that I'm right."

Glasheen also did not rule out the possibility that this case is capable of moving up to the Texas Supreme Court and even the U.S. Supreme Court.

For now, plaintiffs and defendants filed final responses the past week, in anticipation of the end of the trial in favor of UP, which is expected this week.

In the journey leading up to the end of the trial in Midland, the trial week consisted of two days of jury selection from a pool of 80 people and two days of actual proceedings before an abrupt and confusing end.

The first day of proceedings, on Jan. 28, had the opening statements from both sides, which previewed how the plaintiffs were going to argue about the actions of the train crew that was a part of the crash, and the defendants were going to argue that other parties, namely Midland Police Department, Midland County Sheriff’s Office, parade organizer Show of Support, tractor-trailer donor Smith Industries and tractor-trailer drivers James Atchison and Dale Hayden, were responsible for the train crash, not UP.

The plaintiffs also used opening statements to profile three of the four veterans who died from the train crash: U.S. Marine Corps Chief Warrant Officer Gary Stouffer, U.S. Army Sgt. Maj. William Lubbers and retied U.S. Army Sgt. Maj. Lawrence Boivin. All three men sustained injuries while serving their country, hence their selection for the Hunt For Heroes festivities. Widows Catherine Stouffer, Tiffanie Lubbers and Angela Boivin could not contain their sorrow at times during the trial, crying and leaving the courtroom.

The trial seemed to be on track for the weeks-long pace, as plaintiffs called railroad consultant Colin Fulk as its second witness in the mid-afternoon of Jan. 28. But right as Fulk was going to answer questions about video of the crash from a train camera, defendants objected.

The conflict was the legitimacy of the plaintiff’s one claim in the trial, which was that the UP crew onboard the train was negligent because it did not apply brakes early enough as it approached the Garfield Street railroad crossing. The plaintiffs pointed out was that the train engineer, Simon Terrazas, said “look at that idiot” as the first tractor-trailer passed the crossing. Sometime in the evening, Rush threw out the claim, therefore eliminating the plaintiffs’ chances of winning the trial.

On the morning of Jan. 29, plaintiffs called for a mistrial, noting that the case is going to be appealed by either side anyways no matter the outcome. The trial went on break for most of the day as attorneys on both sides met privately. By 4 p.m., some of the plaintiffs and defendant attorneys met with Rush in the judge’s chambers of the 441st District courtroom. It was inside there that Rush said he is going to dismiss all the issues of the case before the jury.

Closing arguments were never made to the jury. The 12 jurors chosen for the trial were dismissed and attorneys packed up all their items and vacated the courtroom.

Analyzing the strength of the plaintiff’s single claim for the trial, Glasheen said it was “ a weaker claim and not a good issue to try.”

“The best argument, the short warning time,” Glasheen said, “was thrown out weeks before the trial.”

In contrast, Ron Melancon, parade safety advocate, thinks that the accident was not caused by UP, but rather the city of Midland. Melancon said the city did not ask for or require proof of insurance for the parade, and the city did not require a parade permit.

“I blame the incompetent leadership of this city (of Midland) who allowed this event to take place without our suggested parade safety standards,” Melancon said. “Shame on everybody who allowed this to happen.”

On his paradesafety.org website, Melancon calls for a “national standard” for parades so that deaths are prevented.

On Nov. 15, 2012, a UP train crashed into a tractor-trailer that doubled as a parade float with 12 veterans and 12 spouses onboard. Four veterans died and 14 other people were injured as a result of the crash. A lawsuit was filed two weeks later.

The case went through several ordeals the past two years, including venue change arguments, case consolidations and presiding judge recusals.

Though the settlement is going through final agreements and adjustments, the amount to be given to the veterans, spouses and family members will not be disclosed. Glasheen said his clients in this case will be “able to live comfortably for the rest of their lives.”

While Glasheen works on the settlement, he reflected on this lawsuit’s impact on his career, saying it was a “huge case.”

"It's a very important case, one of the most important cases in my career because of the scope and the harm that was done, the magnitude of the damages was just incredible," Glasheen said. "These veterans are heroes, and deserve the best from our justice system. Getting to work with Bob Pottroff, arguably the best railroad lawyer in the country, is certainly a highlight of my career."