Articles Posted in Train Accidents

An Amtrak train smashed into a big rig that was partially stopped on the tracks on Thursday, March 8 according to the ABC Local News. The big rig was stopped at a traffic signal but did not realize that he back end of his truck was still on the tracks. The railroad arms came down on the back of the truck and the oncoming train repeatedly honked an alarm. The big rig did not move in time and the train was unable to avoid crashing into it.

The train engineer was sent to the hospital with a back injury and five passengers were treated for minor injuries. The driver of the big rig was cited.

Truck drivers go through training to learn how to handle loaded eighteen wheelers and obtain their Commercial Driver’s License. Trucking companies are concerned with driver safety, especially because they may be liable for damage or injury caused by employee drivers. The Federal Department of Transportation has put limits on the hours a truck operator can drive and the California Department of Motor Vehicles requires that a Commercial Driver’s License applicant pass a medical examination. Despite high standards for drivers, the number of trucking accidents has risen 20% over the last twenty years. The number one reason for these accidents is driver error, as was the case in Thursday’s collision.

Even when drivers do not follow protocol set out by their employers, the employer is still liable for the employee’s actions while driving a company vehicle. This legal theory is called respondeat superior and presumes that an employer holds authority over its employees and is therefore responsible for their actions.

In the past, shipping companies tried to avoid liability by putting distance between itself and its employees and even the big rigs themselves. Companies would lease trucks instead of buying them and claim that they were not liable because they did not actually own the truck involved in an accident. In other cases, companies limited driving positions to independent contract work, and claimed that the drivers were not employees in the strict sense of the word. In the 2011 court case, Sperl v. Robinson, an Illinois Appeals Court struck down that argument. Additionally, the federal government passed regulations to end those defenses.
Continue Reading ›

Our Sacramento train accident lawyer was saddened this week to see a local tragedy dominating both Northern California and national headlines. As details of this sad accident emerge, we wanted to take a moment to comment on transit safety and the importance of Sacramento personal injury lawsuits in holding parties responsible for their actions.

The Sacramento Bee reports that regional transit authorities have called Saturday’s accident the worst light-rail incident in the twenty-five year history of the transit system. Louis Leon Williams (age sixty-two), Shante Hope Williams (age twenty-five), and twenty-two month old Damian Antiwon Williams, were killed when a light rail train crashed into their sports-utility vehicle. The accident also injured a fourth occupant of the SUV, fifty-seven year old Demetric Deann Good Williams. The victims were travelling on 26th Avenue in south Sacramento when the Meadowview line train struck the vehicle, flipping the Nissan Pathfinder and pushing it twenty yards. A number of the train’s fifty passengers also suffered injuries in the crash.

Investigators are still examining the accident but it appears that the driver of the SUV attempted to drive around a lowered guardrail. The Bee reports note that this behavior is often the result of driver frustration which can be multiplied where light-rail and freight trains share tracks resulting in increased delays for automobile traffic. This appears to have been a factor in the weekend accident where the gate arms remained lowered for seven and a half minutes as two freight trains passed before the commuter train arrived thirty-seven seconds later, travelling at between fifty and fifty-five miles per hour. It appears that the SUV’s driver assumed the second freight train was the final train and attempted to cross the tracks as the light-rail train arrived at the crossing.

Last week, an Amtrak train traveling 15-20 mph crashed into a train unlading passengers at an Oakland station injuring 17 people, all whom suffered only minor and non-life-threatening injuries, according to reports. The crash happened around 10pm on Wednesday, October 12th and victims were taken to local hospitals. A train went through a red light and hit a stationary train. At the time of the crash the wheels of each lead engine went off the track. According to one report, an Amtrak representative state that the moving train should have never continued past the red signal because that signal is the equivalent to a red light.

Amtrak and the owner of the tracks, Union Pacific Freight Railroad, will monst likely work with federal officials to investigate the crash. After any train accident many important questions must be answered. Was the conductor negligent or the train company? Were the brakes not working properly? Was the conductor negligent in operating the train? Was he under the influence of any drugs or alcohol or did have any intent to cause the accident? In this particular case it is doubtful that negligence has anything to do with lack of training. What training do you need to know to stop at a red signal? But you never know. The fact is that proving mere negligence here is not a problem, but it might to prove anything more than that, such as proving reckless disregard of the safety of the passengers. State of mind of the conductor will most probably be examined.

Luckily none of the injuries suffered in this particular accident were catastrophic. Often train accidents involve serious injuries and even fatalities. When that does happen, victims and their surviving family members may be eligible to file a claim for compensation. After such an accident, victims and their families should contact a knowledgeable attorney with experience handling claims against public entities such as Amtrak. Anyone who has suffered an injury after being involved in a train accident should contact our experienced train accident attorney who can inform them of their rights. Also, anyone who has suffered an injury significant enough to cause them to see a doctor, take time off work, pay medical bills, go through lengthy pain and suffering, and seek physical rehabilitation, could find relief by hiring our personal injury attorney to file a claim on their behalf.

Most people know that they are more likely be injured in a car accident than virtually any other type of accident. Despite that knowledge, many people are much more afraid of other types of mishaps. Plane crashes, for example, are a common phobia. Besides car and plan accidents, rarely do most community members give much thought to other types of transportation injuries. However, the truth is that accidents can strike whenever one is moving about. For example, while not an everyday occurrence, train crashes can have damaging consequences for passengers and bystanders. Luckily, in a recent San Francisco train accident, the results were alarming but not deadly.

As the Mercury News reported, at least seventeen individuals were injured last Wednesday night when two Amtrak trains collided. The trains involved were the Amtrak Coast Starlight train, which runs from Los Angeles to Seattle, and the southbound San Joaquin train, which runs from Bakersfield to Oakland. The two trains had a combined total of about 150 passengers. It appears that the accident occurred when the San Joaquin train went through a red light and hit the stopped Coast Starlight train. It was traveling about 20 miles per hour when the crash happened. Most of the injuries appear to by minor, though several passengers were sent to the hospital. At least 45 Oakland firefighters responded, as well as numerous police officers and other emergency personnel. Amtrak and Federal Railroad Administration officials are investigating the cause of the accident.

Whenever a local community member is injured in an accident caused by the negligence of another, it is often worthwhile to seek out the aid of a San Francisco injury lawyer. The attorney can explain how the law of negligence might apply in their particular case. For example, in a train injury like this one, the negligence principle of res ipsa loquitur might apply. Translated from the Latin, the phrase means “the thing speaks for itself.” In other words, the principle means that the accident itself is proof of negligence.

In a negligence case, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty of care and breached that duty of care. In some circumstances, however, the plaintiff may not know the details of what happened, making it hard to prove that there was a breach of duty. Res ipsa loquitur allows the plaintiff to show that no matter the details, the accident would have never occurred had it not been for the defendant’s negligence. One famous example involves an accident outside a warehouse, where a barrel fell from a second story window, injuring a pedestrian. Barrels typically do not fall out of windows without assistance, so the plaintiff was able to prove that the barrel owners had breached their duty of care because they had allowed a barrel to fall out of the warehouse. Similarly, the victims of the recent San Francisco train accident may be able to show that trains typically do not crash into each other; the accident is proof enough of negligence.
Continue Reading ›

Today, a Caltrain accident took the life a pedestrian, according to sfexaminer.com, and is yet another reason why we have growing concerns over the safety of our public transportation here in the Bay Area. No details have been released yet. The legal consequences of train accidents can be very complicated and usually involve a number of legal issues, such as causation or comparative negligence, which require the experience of a seasoned attorney. Under California law train companies such as Caltrain have a high duty of care. Caltrain is known as a common carrier because they provide public transportation on daily basis to millions of Californians. Therefore, the law assigns such companies the duty of putting safety first. When they do not act with the upmost duty to ensure safety, this is what is known as negligence. Sadly, sometimes a breach in that duty can cost a person’s life, causing the family members to piece together the tragedy and learn live with their loss in the wake of an accident. Every day, passengers put their lives and their trust in common carriers. Each lawsuit filed against a train companies is a message that tells them it is time to take the safety of the public at large seriously.

Typically there are many factors that determine the worth of case, or what the appropriate settlement or verdict will be. Consequently, any attorney litigating a railroad case must have a comprehension of the many legal and technical factors involving railroads and train accidents, and will usually seek the aid of a railroad accident reconstruction expert in order to build a successful case. Railroad accident reconstruction includes the investigation of any number railroad and train-related factors, such as impact and final rest positions, calculating train speed and braking distance, as well as numerous other factors. It also involves an analysis of the actions of other vehicles involved in a collision with a train such as automobiles and trucks, or analysis of worker, patron, or pedestrian actions in a railroad accident. The findings are referred to as quantifying factors and are then used to produce alternate pre-accident scenarios. Other types of factors include assessing the if the traffic control at a grade crossing, train speed, whether there was sufficient sight distance for train operator, if warning devices were in working order, if the tracks were properly maintained, and if there was a attempt to apply the brakes in a reasonable time frame, etc., etc. Most verdicts and settlements are usually based on some consideration of the facts supplied from accident reconstruction, so it is important to hire an attorney who understands this vital part of the litigation process.
Continue Reading ›

Yesterday a train stuck a big rig in Vacaville, near Vanden and Canon Roads at about 8:30am. The train drove through a truck that was pulling a trailer, according to The Sacramento Bee. A passenger on the train said the train went straight through the middle of a truck that was pulling a trailer. A captain from the Vacaville Fire District aboard the train said by cell phone that the collision happened south of Vacaville where Canon Road crosses the tracks. No injury was reported to the big rig driver, but emergency personnel were assessing possible injuries. The truck driver told the authorities that he never knew the train was coming and that he was waiting at stop sign and didn’t realize the back of his trailer was on the railroad tracks until the collision occurred.

Just last month a similar accident took place in Nevada in which a truck driver plowed into an Amtrak train, according to that area’s local news. The collision killed six people and injured 20 others. Shortly after, Amtrak filed suit against the trucking company in Federal court. Now the trucking company is counter suing Amtrak and Union Pacific, the company that owns the train tacks that Amtrak uses. John DavisTrucking Company is facing a total of five lawsuits, and, according to court documents filed in U.S. district Court in Reno on Friday, their counter suit against Amtrak claims that the railroad companies did not adequately warn drivers of on-coming trains. They believe the evidence will demonstrate that this was an issue involving Amtrak and Union Pacific and failures on their part. They also claim that both Amtrak and Union Pacific breached their duties by allowing trains to accelerate during the approach to the grade crossing and in failing to install, program, and maintain the grade crossing predictor , associated circuitry, and warning device mechanisms so as to provide adequate warning to travelers on Highway 95 of the approach of trains at the crossing-all of which they claim resulted in the driver being unable to stop the truck he was operating in time to avoid colliding with the train. The attorneys for the trucking company have stated they have “significant concerns” regarding the manner in which Amtrak and Union Pacific operated that crossing-both in terms of the train and its operations and the manner in which the crossing was operated for those lawfully on the roads, including John Davis’ truck. So far, Union Pacific and Amtrak have not made themselves available for comment. Although railroad companies have a legal responsibility to make railroad crossings safe, it is still uncertain if that particular section or railroad was indeed unsafe.

Crews have already been combing through debris and have obtained two minutes of color video from Amtrak taken right after the train applied its emergency brakes. Authorities say the video indicated that when the crash happened the weather conditions were clear, the crossing gates were down and the horn and signaling device were operating properly. The National Safety and Transportation Bureau plan to meet with the truck company, whose driver was involved in the crash, and look into health and driving records of the driver and the company’s past. They say they have found the cell phone belonging to the semi-truck driver. The cell phone was sent to Washington D. C. for investigation to see if the driver was using it right before the crash, as it may have been a potential distraction in the crash. It will be around 30 days before a formal report is ready.
Continue Reading ›

On Friday, September 12, 2008, Los Angeles experienced one of the worst U.S. commuter disasters in recent memory. At least 25 people were killed as a result of the Metrolink train crash in the San Fernando Valley that left well over 130 people injured. Reports indicate the train was traveling approximately 42 miles per hour when it ran head-on into a Union Pacific freight train. It has also been reported that the engineer responsible for driving the Metrolink train may have been sending a text-message on his cell phone immediately before the collision.

I have written about the new cell phone laws in the State of California, as well as specific incidents involving bus drivers and possible cell phone usage. According to the N.T.S.B. (National Transportation Safety Board), the Metrolink train failed to stop at a red signal, which appears to have been working, and should have been visible, and the N.T.S.B. has been working to re-enact the crash to learn as much as possible about what happened. Currently, though drivers are prohibited from using hands free cellular devices while driving, the California Public Utilities Commission does not prohibit the driver of a passenger train from using a cell phone or text-messaging, though they are responsible for hundreds of lives. Aside from driver neglect, it is incomprehensible and reprehensible that Metrolink did not have additional safety measure in place to prevent such a catastrophe. In the coming weeks and months after this catastrophe, we can expect to see new legislation introduced as a direct result of this horrible event.