Ben Crane Partner at
Coplan + Crane

There’s something to be said about having a competitive disposition, whether in sports or at school…or for Ben Crane, in the courtroom. And along with the spirit of competition, what Ben has come to treasure most is the camaraderie of a team – working together to meet a common goal, to right wrongs for those whose lives were impacted by both negligence and catastrophic injuries. Growing up with a father who was a lawyer, Ben saw how much people depended on his father’s expertise.

“As I got farther into the law, I knew I wanted to be in the courtroom trying cases,” remembers Ben. “You have this opportunity to change somebody’s life [after] they’ve had something horrible happen to them with nobody else to turn to. I relish that opportunity.”

In fact, part of being competitive is knowing when to seize those opportunities while also staying strong if the going gets tough. And as partner of his Chicago-based law firm Coplan + Crane – a firm solely focusing on catastrophic injury cases – it’s safe to say the going is always tough.

“With knowing that we can make big change for people and even the community…I enjoy the fight and the pursuit of victory,” says Ben.

Since opening its doors in 2005, Coplan + Crane has centered its efforts on representing individuals severely injured or killed because of myriad circumstances. From trucking accidents to medical malpractice to railroad negligence, Ben’s efforts have helped attain justice for the downtrodden and ensured safer conditions for the Chicago, Oak Park, and Rockford communities.

“That’s what gets me up in the morning – working for injured people, trying to right wrongs, and moving the needle in someone’s life,” Ben says.

Passion for the practice and the people

“I learned early on [in my career], you’ve got to dig. You can’t take everything at face value,” Ben recalls.

This lesson came with his first role as a plaintiff’s attorney where he worked exclusively on obstetrical malpractice cases. These cases were undoubtedly complex, involving negligent care provided by a doctor before, during, or after birth that resulted in catastrophic harm to the baby.

While a settlement for these families couldn’t restore the child’s health and wellbeing, it would significantly help fund their long-term care.

“These cases are particularly special because you have a chance to [help] a family that’s had this devastating tragedy happen to them,” explains Ben. “This child is an infant now, but one day, they’ll be a 40- or 50-year-old person that can’t care for themselves. The enormous amount of money it takes to provide their necessary care will provide some level of normalcy [for these families] – and that is astronomical.”

Not only did his work help the families deal with their grief, but it advocated for countless infants who couldn’t speak for themselves. For Ben, that was a defining point of this specific casework.

Preserving safety in the railroad industry

More recently, a significant part of Ben’s time has been spent representing those injured as a result of railroad accidents.

Chicago stands as the United States’ busiest rail hub, with six of the seven major Class I North American railroads running through the city. Not to mention, freight rail makes up a significant portion of the Chicago area economy at $645 billion, according to the Wall Street Journal. Moreover, Chicago’s suburban commuter rail lines (aka, Metra) make use of these freight rails, and thus, are upkept by freight rail workers.

With railroads having such deep stakes in the Windy City, Coplan + Crane finds it more important than ever to raise and maintain railroad safety standards for the greater good. That leads them to representing both regular citizens injured in train collisions and railroaders injured while on the job.

Effecting change for pedestrians

The first case Ben recalls involved a dangerous railroad crossing that cut diagonally through a busy Chicago neighborhood, causing various fatal accidents. In 2015, Ben and his firm represented the family of two young women killed at this intersection when a train collided with their car that was trapped on the tracks – the gate closed behind it.

“After we got on that case, I went to the site and could immediately tell there was a big problem that needed fixed [or] people were going to get caught again,” Ben remembers.

After seeing it for himself, Ben cited a number of problems with the intersection. First, the crossing was confusing in nature, and second, the trains were accelerating into the crossing – a dangerous act in such a densely populated area.

“I wanted to prove this point to the railroad, and frankly, to the whole community if I could. So we put this railroad crossing under surveillance,” explains Ben.

Getting permission from a nearby business owner, Ben and his team set up a camera in their shop, filming the area of the crossing where cars were repeatedly getting caught. The surveillance lasted four months.

“This really dangerous situation was happening once a day,” Ben says, still in disbelief. “By all standards of care and railroad measures, it was a problem that should have been identified and eliminated as a hazard.”

Unfortunately, safety changes could not come soon enough. In 2020, toward the end of their four-month surveillance, Ben’s team captured yet another fatal collision. This time, the crash seriously injured three people and killed one. On Coplan + Crane’s website, Ben is quoted saying that the 2020 crash was “virtually identical to the 2015 accident.”

These tragic accidents, coupled with their video, bolstered Ben’s case, proving that the pattern of error and consistent safety hazard was present at the crossing. That proof led to the city making significant modifications to the crossing, thus keeping its citizens all the safer.

“Since then, they’ve completely reconfigured the crossing. It almost entirely eliminated the hazard and changed the way the trains are running in the area,” Ben says. “I know the work we did, and in no small part, brought that change about.”

Protecting railroaders under FELA

Another case Ben remembers involved a man named John, a freight rail conductor working for a subsidiary of a prominent international railroad. At the time, railroaders like John were permitted to jump on and off moving trains as part of their job – a task known to be dangerous yet widely accepted in the railroad industry.

“In the late 2000s, this particular railroad had a rule against it because they saw it was unsafe for people to get on and off moving equipment. But then they allowed them to start doing it again when they realized they could make more money if the trains kept moving,” explains Ben.

This greed–fueled corporate decision would endanger the lives of the very workers that kept the freight trains moving – and John was proof of that. One evening, while he attempted to mount a moving train, John slipped and got pulled under the locomotive, losing his leg as a result. After learning the details of John’s accident and this unsafe practice, Ben took the railroad to trial.

“They did not offer anywhere near a fair settlement given how badly John had gotten hurt,” Ben recalls. “I was surprised with their lack of understanding [of the situation]. And as the trial went on, it became more apparent that their own people didn’t believe this was an unsafe work practice.”

To strengthen his case, Ben cited the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), a US federal law that protects railroaders injured on the clock. This law, passed by Congress in 1908, remains necessary since railroaders don’t typically qualify for Workers’ Compensation due to the hazardous nature of railroad work. Thanks to FELA, if railroaders can prove that the railroad acted “legally negligent” in respect to a worker’s injury, the railroader can be fully compensated, oftentimes more than what Workers’ Compensation would provide.

The trial was then held in one of the smallest counties in Illinois, a fact that the railroad believed would work in their favor.

“The railroad didn’t believe that small-town America thought a lot about safety, or that they were concerned about corporate malfeasance when it came to workers’ safety,” says Ben. “This jury did – they rewarded $25 million.”

But despite the victory, when Ben Crane remembers this case, it’s John’s wellbeing that first comes to his mind. It’s a victory that went on to change John’s life, providing him with the means to afford what he previously could not; perhaps most importantly, a top-quality prosthetic leg.

Another vital part of Ben’s victory was successfully using FELA to prove that it was the railroad’s egregious decision-making that led to John’s injury.

“Oftentimes, and certainly in the [railroad] setting, they’re putting blinders on, going forward, and hoping for the best,” Ben says. “But hope is not a plan for safety.”

Unfortunately, what happened to John is not uncommon, and despite that, many railroads continue to allow this dangerous practice without regulation. With the railroad industry’s deep, 150-year history in America, Ben concedes that they may be hard-pressed to see any federal changes occur. Still, he’s hopeful that trial attorneys in this line of work will especially contribute to a future change.

“Once you expose a problem, and once you show that fixing that problem can prevent somebody from getting killed, it’s on the corporation to fix it,” Ben asserts. “Hopefully the railroad will remember that.”

Partnerships that play to your strengths

As a business owner, one of Ben’s defining strategies is playing to his colleagues’ strengths to improve the law firm. For instance, Ben loves pouring over documents, transcripts, and evidence to build each case. In that same breath, Ben knows there are financial experts that are better equipped to fortify his business – experts like Esquire Bank.

“In our line of work, you have to look 18 to 24 months down the road [and ask], ‘What’s it going to take to make sure the case is being appropriately investigated? What’s it going to take to make sure the demonstrative exhibits and the illustrations that you need for trial are paid for?’ Having somebody like Esquire at your side makes that a heck of a lot easier,” Ben says.

Contingency fee law firms using traditional banks typically face the same barrier: they just don’t understand the unique ins and outs of the contingency fee model. Thus, traditional banks view these firms as risky, a label that comes with a lot of red tape.

“Since Esquire has the expertise dealing with plaintiffs’ firms, they understand that the commitments we make in our cases reflect the confidence that we have,” says Ben. “And they tap into that confidence to help support us.”

Medical malpractice cases, for example, can cost anywhere from $100,000 to $400,000, depending on the complexity of the case. In comparison, a case involving a car crash may only cost up to $3,000. The financial need for Coplan + Crane’s cases is staggering, but having Esquire in their corner since 2018, it’s no longer been a barrier to attaining justice.

“To be able to stand toe-to-toe against auto manufacturers, massive healthcare corporations, pharmaceutical companies, and drug manufacturers – without backing down to bring justice to my clients – there’s nothing more empowering than that.”