Jump to content

Driver’s family blames ‘dangerous crossing’ for fatal Metro-North crash


YankeesPwnMets

Recommended Posts

The family of a woman who drove in front of a Metro-North train — causing a crash that killed 5 commuters and herself — says in a new lawsuit it’s all the state’s fault for not fixing the “dangerous crossing.”

The intersection of the tracks and Commerce Street in Mount Pleasant had bad signage and lighting and a skewed angle which prevented drivers from seeing oncoming trains or even seeing that they were on tracks, the suit claims. The state also sat on $126,000 that the feds had handed over for fixing the crossing for five years even through the intersection at Valhalla was not up to federal standards, said the suit, which was filed by the family of Ellen Brody, who was killed by the commuter train in February of last year.

train3.jpg?quality=100&strip=all&w=200&sEllen BrodyPhoto: AP

“Ellen Brody was a victim of this dangerous crossing just as the people who died on the train were,” said attorney Philip Russotti, who filed the suit on behalf of the family on the first anniversary of the crash. Another 15 people on the train were injured. “This crossing should have been closed years ago,” said Russotti.

Another man, Gerald Dunne, was killed at the same crossing back in 1984.

Defendants in the case include the MTA, Metro-North Railroad, the county of Westchester, the town of Mount Pleasant, and the conductor who was driving the train at the time. The family filed a separate lawsuit against New York state.

The MTA declined to comment on the case, saying it has not yet seen the suit and does not comment on pending litigation.

State transportation officials said on Wednesday that much of upgrades were done before the crash without using the federal money. The fixes included added additional crossing signs and installing sensors that control the traffic lights on the road near the crossing. The state had not yet gotten around to installing flashers at the crossing where the crash happened.

“The NTSB has said the rail crossing functioned as designed,” said state DOT spokesman Gary Holmes, referring to an ongoing investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board. “Further enhancements at this crossing – and others – are possible based on NTSB recommendations following the final report.”

 

At first glance I honestly thought that this was just a very stupid decision made by a woman who decided to be impatient and tried to beat the train. Her decision to get out of the car, drive forward into the train was completely inexplicable, in my opinion. Why would you drive further onto the tracks after the gate hits your car? I may sound like callous prick for saying this, but what she did that night was so stupid it defies explanation. However, I have never been in to this railroad crossing before, so I can't judge whether or not her family has any meritorious arguments with regards to the "dangerous" crossing. What I do know, however, is that her family listing the conductor as a defendant is complete and utter bullshit. Basic physics tells us that p=mv, or momentum = mass * velocity. One M7 weighs around 57000kg. We'll make it 60000kg to account for passengers. An entire train would weigh around 480,000kg, at 58mph (25.93m/s), and the momentum of that train would have been aroud 12,446,400kg-m/s. Blaming the conductor for being unable to stop a train with more than 12 million kg-m/s of momentum in 300 feet is frivolous and foolish.  There is no way he has any fault in this accident.

 

What do you guys think? Do you guys think that this was just a very stupid and tragic decision made by the woman or does her family have legit claims? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think the family may actually win if their lawyer can show negligence on behalf of the state.  Given how tragic this was, I would think that the state will try to put this to rest and do so quietly.  Doesn't look good for them otherwise, especially when they sat on federal funds to upgrade the crossings, plus there's a history of issues at this crossing.  If I was on this jury based on what I've read, I would probably agree with the lawsuit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

At first glance I honestly thought that this was just a very stupid decision made by a woman who decided to be impatient and tried to beat the train. Her decision to get out of the car, drive forward into the train was completely inexplicable, in my opinion. Why would you drive further onto the tracks after the gate hits your car? I may sound like callous prick for saying this, but what she did that night was so stupid it defies explanation. However, I have never been in to this railroad crossing before, so I can't judge whether or not her family has any meritorious arguments with regards to the "dangerous" crossing. What I do know, however, is that her family listing the conductor as a defendant is complete and utter bullshit. Basic physics tells us that p=mv, or momentum = mass * velocity. One M7 weighs around 57000kg. We'll make it 60000kg to account for passengers. An entire train would weigh around 480,000kg, at 58mph (25.93m/s), and the momentum of that train would have been aroud 12,446,400kg-m/s. Blaming the conductor for being unable to stop a train with more than 12 million kg-m/s of momentum in 300 feet is frivolous and foolish.  There is no way he has any fault in this accident.

I agree. This lawsuit is complete and utter bullshit...

 

The state, MTA and the conductor have done nothing wrong and don't need to give her a cent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually wouldn't be surprised if the family won the case. If the lighting was better, she might've had a better idea of where her car was, relative to the path of the train, and might've made a different decision. (Obviously, nobody knows for sure what was going through her head, but I would assume that she thought the best decision would be to move forward to get out of the path of the train, rather than move back).

 

Especially if the state was sitting on money designated to upgrade the crossing, they might have a legitimate case. Not saying she wasn't to blame for her role in the accident, but had the circumstances been different, she and the 5 passengers might still be alive.

 

I do agree that the motorman/engineer (no idea what the conductor has to do with this) is completely innocent in this. A huge train traveling at 58 mph can't stop in a few seconds. It's just basic physics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the MTA has a witness to this woman's tragic lack of common sense.

 

gates are down=train is comming=forget the freaking car and RUN!

Only she would've been responsible for the deaths/injuries for this incident had she did....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard that her particular SUV had the Drive and Reverse gears swapped. So, I'm thinking that, in a panic, she pulled the shifter back, as you do in most cars, only to move forward in Drive.

Could it be possible that the car manufacturer could be open for a lawsuit based on the setup of the transmission gearshift?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it be possible that the car manufacturer could be open for a lawsuit based on the setup of the transmission gearshift?

 

Anyone could sue anyone for anything.  My take is, this is the way the car was setup when she bought it.  If she didn't like the setup, then she shouldn't have bought it.  It's not as if it was faulty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone could sue anyone for anything. My take is, this is the way the car was setup when she bought it. If she didn't like the setup, then she shouldn't have bought it. It's not as if it was faulty.

Let's not forget people with 2014+ cars and don't turn the headlights on at night....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, perhaps I should drive into the East River and blame the city for not building a bridge in that particular spot?

 

 

Let's not forget people with 2014+ cars and don't turn the headlights on at night....

Even some newer cars with daytime running lights eliminate the need to turn the headlights on

 

Only she would've been responsible for the deaths/injuries for this incident had she did....

True.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even some newer cars with daytime running lights eliminate the need to turn the headlights on

 

Yes, however, even those cars are not fool proof.

 

I have a car that turns on the head lights automatically.  The problem with those is it could rain and the lights won't go on.  NY State required headlights to be on if the wipers are on (headlights, not daytime running lights).  With that said I would expect a ticket if I got pulled over as a result.  Furthermore, if I did not have the headlights on while raining and got into an accident, even though the accident may not have been my fault, I should not have been driving with out my headlights on.

 

Yes, I understand that this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  What is in common is the subject of placing blame.  Don't blame everyone else under the sun when there was one specific person at fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, however, even those cars are not fool proof.

 

I have a car that turns on the head lights automatically. The problem with those is it could rain and the lights won't go on. NY State required headlights to be on if the wipers are on (headlights, not daytime running lights). With that said I would expect a ticket if I got pulled over as a result. Furthermore, if I did not have the headlights on while raining and got into an accident, even though the accident may not have been my fault, I should not have been driving with out my headlights on.

 

Yes, I understand that this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. What is in common is the subject of placing blame. Don't blame everyone else under the sun when there was one specific person at fault.

Lol @ fool proof

 

Responsibility: It's a lost art....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.