Passenger Trains > Widower sues on anniversary of deadly N.Y. train crash

USA Today article.  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/02/03/widower-sues-anniversary-ny-train-crash/79795002/

what a bunch of crap ...  i'm sorry for this guy's loss of losing his wife but she got out of the vehicle ON THE TRACKS and got back in the vehicle ... sad part is, there will be some technicality where a settlement will be paid out ...

Edit: what I don't see see are DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS signs ... EVERY RR hwy crossing at grade should be equipped with such signage ... not only to be yet another reminder to not to foul the tracks but for a couple hundred dollars for a set of signs (manufactured and installation), it would also further help lessen liabilty on the part of the railroads ...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/16 05:46 by Out_Of_Service.

"The train should have been going slower because of heavy traffic in the area."  Say what? How is that the trains responsability?  And not enough room on the other side. I thought the law was not to try and cross unless there is room on the other side to clear. What every happened to personal responsability. As  O of S said. What a load of crap. 

She was 100% at fault, but given the geometry of the road, the congestion on it, and the traffic light, it at least needs to be better lit since car headlights coming around a curve do not shine onto certain key signs, and NYS can damned well draw up plans to eliminate the grade crossing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/16 03:56 by joemvcnj.

my understanding is NY law allows you to hold multiple parties liable for damages. That means the family can sue everyone in sight.

The news articles say the state knew there was a danger at the crossing, and looked at ways to remediate the problem.

But, the town, railroad, parkway authority, DOT, etc never reached a conclusion.

Reasonable people can differ whether these folks and the driver of the following car made things worse. Nobody questions the driver's action was the immediate cause.

Maybe six of them will be on a jury...

Posted from Android

Let's hope the families of the victims on the train sue her estate for at least as much as they are trying to sue the railroad for. Unlike her, they were truely innocent victims.

From the article:

The families of several passengers who died have already filed lawsuits making similar claims. So far, none of those lawsuits names Brody as a defendant.​

what I don't see see are DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS signs ... EVERY RR hwy crossing at grade in the US should be equipped with such signage ... not only to be yet another reminder to not to foul the tracks but for a couple hundred dollars for a set of signs (manufactured and installation), it would also further help lessen liabilty on the part of the railroads ...

on the other hand I feel the passengers who burned that were on the train fell victim to a totally different set of circumstances ... I believe, even tho their direct deaths were due to the female driver, that there are litigating factors which can be argued for reasons for them perishing in the accident such as physical construction factors on how the 3rd rail was attached, the close proximity of the ends of the 3rd rail were to the crossing and how easy it was to become unattached and penetrate the bottom floor of the passenger car ...

the railroad no doubtedly is going to pay out the WHAZOO for the whole mess, but the estate of the female driver who caused the catastosphe should NOT. in any way be beneficiary to any suit for wrongful death or punitive damages ... in fact her estate should be contributory in monetary damages awarded to the passengers whose deaths she was liable for ...

I'm surprised the following wasn't written in the complaint: 

The dangerous railroad track needs to be abandoned and converted into a hiking and biking trail.

One item that received a lot of attention at the time was an "unusual" end of the third rail at the crossing. The stories asserted that the fire inside the train was the result of the third rail breaking free of its mooring, as the train pushed the car into the power rail.

The issue isn't the car on the tracks. The issue is whether other decisions made the situation more tragic.

Posted from Android

What pisses me off is naming the engineer in the suit. I hope he files a massive countersuit against that IDIOT and his dumb wife.

Posted from Android

DG .
Unknown, US

Cumbresfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From the article:
>
> The families of several passengers who died have
> already filed lawsuits making similar claims. So
> far, none of those lawsuits names Brody as a
> defendant.​

That is astounding / other than for the fact that the woman's assets are likely somewhat limited compared to those of the railroad, et al

Why sue the family of the driver?  Her insurance probably limits damages to $300,000 or maybe $500,000.  Go where the deep pockets are.  It doesn't matter who is at fault, just who has the deepest pockets.  Heck, they would probably sue the ground hog because it was still winter but that critter doesn't have anything but a hole in the ground!

Technically, you can pick apart just about any situation.  There was a spike that was a bit loose.  The engineer was talking to the dispatcher on the radio.  There was a loose screw on the mount for the third rail.  A leaf fell out of a tree and hit the windshield and distracted the engineer for a fraction of a second.  If you read any of the accident reports on other incidents, you will find that this world is not perfect.  The railroad isn't perfect either.  We know that going 62 MPH in a 60 MPH zone is not going to cause an accident but it would be one of the factors that would be listed in a report.  All that said, the lady stopped on the tracks where she shouldn't have.  Tons of metal hit the third rail in a way that it was not designed to be hit.  A third rail entered the coach where it wasn't ever expected to enter. 

I was on a jury several years ago.  We ruled against the plaintiff in an auto accident case.  The defendant was probably going about 5 MPH above the speed limit,  He had changed his own brakes a week earlier, a garbage truck was running late on it's schedule, and a few other items were introduced in the case.  I talked to the lawyer after the case and he told me, "We settled on this last week but the garbage company has millions in insurance and it was worth it to at least try the case.

John

MAYBE something good can come from this.

The idea that the crossing should have been closed due to limited traffic and alternatives available .. that a good idea.

iliketrains Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MAYBE something good can come from this.
>
> The idea that the crossing should have been
> closed due to limited traffic and alternatives
> available .. that a good idea.

It was a good idea when the suggestion was made 20 years ago. Still is a good idea.  The problem is that there are many agencies which can block a change. 

(The accident happened when the adjacent parkway was closed due to an accident. That forced an enormous amount of traffic onto a country road exit with a badly designed rail crossing.  The local police agency could not / did not respond to a request to direct traffic through the crossing and adjacent traffic signal.  Although they were aware of a potential for problems. They're being sued, too, I'm sure.)

wa4umr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why sue the family of the driver?  Her insurance
> probably limits damages to $300,000 or maybe
> $500,000
>
> John

​hey ya start dipping into the pockets of persons liable and MAYBE JUST MAYBE something will stick in the brains of these numbskulls that they should not put their financial stability at risk ... people don't see situations for what they are, but if ya put the potential to take some duckets out of the pockets and all of sudden they start paying attention ...

We recently saw the state of Nevada throw out the BS claims on the semi vs. CZ wreck. Now we will see what NY does.

NY is one of the highest cost states to live and do business in the U.S. High tolerance for frivolous cases and "soak the deep pockets" jury awards are one of the reasons.

Bob

bnsfbob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NY is one of the highest cost states to live and
> do business in the U.S. High tolerance for
> frivolous cases and "soak the deep pockets" jury
> awards are one of the reasons.

Just about every so-called "deep pocket" I have heard about with respect to this discussion is either a government or a quasi-governmental agency, so ultimately this is simply a ploy to suck money from the populace in general.

Ray

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm surprised the following wasn't written in the
> complaint: 
>
> The dangerous railroad track needs to be abandoned
> and converted into a hiking and biking trail.

Seriously?  This is how you view the plaintiffs?  Where do you come up this?

RuleG Wrote:
> Seriously?  This is how you view the
> plaintiffs?  Where do you come up this?

A tongue-in-cheek observation that's hard to convey in written form.  But this is starting to become a perception by John Q. Public toward railroads. The Adirondack Railroad would like to survive as a railroad, but pressures are mounting on many fronts to convert it to a trail.