Jump to content

Rail Design Led to Deadliness of Valhalla Metro-North Train Crash


Via Garibaldi 8

Recommended Posts

Rail Design Led to Deadliness of NY Train Crash: Official

 

The Metro-North Railroad train crashed into an SUV on the tracks at a crossing in Valhalla, about 20 miles north of New York City By Ida SiegalMichael Balsamo and Jennifer Peltz

 

Federal investigators have concluded that a fiery crash between a commuter train and an SUV that killed six people in the suburbs in 2015 was extra deadly because of an unusual rail design, a U.S. official told The Associated Press on Monday.

 

The Metro-North Railroad train crashed into an SUV on the tracks at a crossing in Valhalla, about 20 miles north of New York City. The impact sparked an explosion, and flames blasted into the passenger area, burning out the first car of the train. The driver of the SUV and five people aboard the train were killed. More than a dozen other people were injured.

 

National Transportation Safety Board investigators found that about 340 feet of electrified rail was pulled up from the ground, penetrated the SUV's fuel tank and then sliced into the train, according to the official, who was not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation and spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity.

 

The rail was an under-running or under-riding design, in which a metal shoe slips underneath the electrified third rail, rather than skimming along the top. Questions were raised after the crash about whether the collision caused the shoe to pry up the third rail.

 

Metro-North, which operates in New York and Connecticut, is believed to be the only U.S. commuter railroad with the under-riding rail configuration.

 

NTSB investigators are also recommending risk assessments be conducted for grade crossings, the official said.

 

The board is scheduled to meet Tuesday in Washington, and investigators are expected to present their final report on the crash.

 

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which operates Metro-North, "will carefully review any safety recommendations" made by NTSB investigators, MTA spokesman Aaron Donovan said.

 

Passengers were trapped in the fiery, mangled wreckage and tried to pry open the doors to escape. One passenger, whose hands, shirt and hair were on fire, shattered an emergency box and then pried the doors open before leading a group of passengers out of the wreckage.

 

The SUV's driver, Ellen Brody, had stopped in traffic on the tracks, between the lowered crossing gates. Witnesses said Brody got out of her Mercedes SUV to inspect the damage to her vehicle before driving forward and being struck by the oncoming train.

 

A data recorder showed the train's engineer hit the emergency brakes and sounded the horn as it bore down on the Valhalla crossing, traveling 58 mph in a 60 mph zone, the National Transportation Safety Board has said.

 

Brody's husband has filed a wrongful death and negligence lawsuit against Metro-North, its parent agency, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the train's engineer. The lawsuit alleges that the crash was caused by a badly designed grade grossing and improper warning signs.

"She just didn't know she was on a railroad track," Brody's husband, Alan Brody, said Monday. "The warning signals were invisible."

 

Alan Brody says his wife got stuck in traffic that fateful night and ended up on the tracks with no room to move forward or backward. He says the Commerce Street crossing where she lost her life has insufficient signage and warning lights and that it's inherently unsafe. 

 

"This crossing really should be shut," he said. "They need to straighten the road. They need to change the signs so you can actually see them." 

 

Witnesses at the time questioned why Ellen Brody didn't back up her car when the lever came down and it was apparent the train was coming.

 

"Once you understand all the pieces, and how they came together, I think people will have a deeper understanding of what's really wrong, what really happened, and yes, that she is innocent," Brody said.

 

Brody is heading to Washington to hear the NTSB's findings in person, and perhaps put to rest years of questioning why his wife was killed.

 

"I just feel that the story has to be told and understood, and this is the moment when we hope it will be," he said. 

 

 
Published at 6:17 PM EDT on Jul 24, 2017 | Updated at 8:19 PM EDT on Jul 24, 2017
 

Copyright Associated Press / NBC4 Washington

Source: Rail Design Led to Deadliness of NY Train Crash: Official | NBC4 Washington http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/NTSB-Metro-North-Valhalla-Ellen-Brody-SUV-Deadly-Train-Crash-436359043.html#ixzz4nrE7xRCD 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


On what planet is backing onto a railroad crossing a good idea, or leaving ANYTHING on one?  In the first place, the NYS Driver's Manual says to never stop on tracks, and moving onto them is just about the worst thing you can do.  I know that not every rail road crossing in the state has gates, but it shouldn't need to be said: 500 tons of steel doing the speed limit is going to hit hard.

 

 

 

 

Never race a train to a crossing, never drive around lowered gates, and do not stop on tracks.

 

Some grade crossing do not have gates or flashing lights. When approaching unmarked, or passive, grade crossings, slow down and be prepared to stop. Before you cross, be sure that a train is not coming. If you see a train coming, wait until it passes, and then cross the tracks when it is safe to do so.


 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On what planet is backing onto a railroad crossing a good idea, or leaving ANYTHING on one?  In the first place, the NYS Driver's Manual says to never stop on tracks, and moving onto them is just about the worst thing you can do.  I know that not every rail road crossing in the state has gates, but it shouldn't need to be said: 500 tons of steel doing the speed limit is going to hit hard.

 

They're saying she should've backed up to get away from the tracks instead of driving forward into the path of the train. She was already on the crossing, possibly without realizing it (from what witnesses say, the crossing arm hit the back of her car, so she went out to check, and then got back in and drove forward. Maybe she forgot to put the car in reverse or maybe she thought she had more time to get out of the way, but either way it's a tragedy for all involved)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're saying she should've backed up to get away from the tracks instead of driving forward into the path of the train. She was already on the crossing, possibly without realizing it (from what witnesses say, the crossing arm hit the back of her car, so she went out to check, and then got back in and drove forward. Maybe she forgot to put the car in reverse or maybe she thought she had more time to get out of the way, but either way it's a tragedy for all involved)

But either way she is completely at fault. All lives lost that day were a result of her actions. Part of having a licence to drive is knowing how to react in certain situations, and she did not react appropriately. It's unfortunate but everyone is victim her a poor mistake of judgment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But either way she is completely at fault. All lives lost that day were a result of her actions. Part of having a licence to drive is knowing how to react in certain situations, and she did not react appropriately. It's unfortunate but everyone is victim her a poor mistake of judgment. 

 

 

Yeah I thought the NTSB found the lady stopping on the tracks at fault. I was reading a sample of how her husband was trying every excuse in the book to deny responsibility

The family is going through with a civil lawsuit against the (MTA). With these findings, I'm sure they'll win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The family is going through with a civil lawsuit against the (MTA). With these findings, I'm sure they'll win.

How do you figure? The third rail didn't cause the crash, only contributed to the death toll. The chances of Mrs Brody surviving the train hitting her are slim, third rail or no third rail. None of it would have happened if she didn't stop in a railroad crossing.

 

Furthermore, once she realized the crossing arm came down on the vehicle, how good of an idea is it to go back in the vehicle? Cars can be replaced, lives can not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you figure? The third rail didn't cause the crash, only contributed to the death toll. The chances of Mrs Brody surviving the train hitting her are slim, third rail or no third rail. None of it would have happened if she didn't stop in a railroad crossing.

Furthermore, once she realized the crossing arm came down on the vehicle, how good of an idea is it to go back in the vehicle? Cars can be replaced, lives can not.

Answer me this. If the family didn't think they had a case, why would they pay a lawyer out of the @ss to represent them? It would be a waste of time and money. We both know that people have filed civil suits and won with far less. It's the family's belief that this tragedy could've been prevented and they intend to cash in one way or another. I don't necessarily agree either, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

 

The (MTA) usually likes to get these things settled and make them go away. Metro-North has experienced record ridership. Do you think this is something they want being thrown around in the news?

 

I've had jury duty in the past. I don't have all of the facts and I doubt you do either, but from what I have read, they make a pretty good case. I could see me ruling in the family's favor.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/family-woman-killed-metro-north-crash-plans-sue-article-1.2210068

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People do crazy (stupid) things when going through the grieving process such as Mr. Brody. The lawyers taking advantage of this situation/guy just to get money any way they can are nothing more than money hungry leeches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People do crazy (stupid) things when going through the grieving process such as Mr. Brody. The lawyers taking advantage of this situation/guy just to get money any way they can are nothing more than money hungry leeches.

I will say though, the fact that the person behind Ms. Brody could not see the train tracks immediately helps to solidify their case that not enough was done in advance to prevent this accident.  I'm not saying that Ms. Brody doesn't bear any responsibility in this, but it appears evident that not enough was done to prevent such an accident.  

 

The article I referenced states the following:

 

 

 

The drive up to the intersection lacked proper lights and signs to warn drivers of the rail tracks in time to be prepared for it, a violation of federal standards, according to the notice of claim. And motorists' line of sight was blocked by a building alongside the tracks, the Brody family contends.

 

 

It goes on to say this:

 

 

In 2009, the state Department of Transportation set aside $130,000 for added safety lights and signs, according to the legal claim, the first step in filing a lawsuit. The safety precautions were never installed, records show. It remains unclear why the safety upgrade never happened.

If the above the true, then someone has to be held accountable for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rail Design Led to Deadliness of NY Train Crash: Official

 

The Metro-North Railroad train crashed into an SUV on the tracks at a crossing in Valhalla, about 20 miles north of New York City By Ida SiegalMichael Balsamo and Jennifer Peltz

 

Federal investigators have concluded that a fiery crash between a commuter train and an SUV that killed six people in the suburbs in 2015 was extra deadly because of an unusual rail design, a U.S. official told The Associated Press on Monday.

 

The Metro-North Railroad train crashed into an SUV on the tracks at a crossing in Valhalla, about 20 miles north of New York City. The impact sparked an explosion, and flames blasted into the passenger area, burning out the first car of the train. The driver of the SUV and five people aboard the train were killed. More than a dozen other people were injured.

 

National Transportation Safety Board investigators found that about 340 feet of electrified rail was pulled up from the ground, penetrated the SUV's fuel tank and then sliced into the train, according to the official, who was not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation and spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity.

 

The rail was an under-running or under-riding design, in which a metal shoe slips underneath the electrified third rail, rather than skimming along the top. Questions were raised after the crash about whether the collision caused the shoe to pry up the third rail.

 

Metro-North, which operates in New York and Connecticut, is believed to be the only U.S. commuter railroad with the under-riding rail configuration.

 

NTSB investigators are also recommending risk assessments be conducted for grade crossings, the official said.

 

The board is scheduled to meet Tuesday in Washington, and investigators are expected to present their final report on the crash.

 

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which operates Metro-North, "will carefully review any safety recommendations" made by NTSB investigators, MTA spokesman Aaron Donovan said.

 

Passengers were trapped in the fiery, mangled wreckage and tried to pry open the doors to escape. One passenger, whose hands, shirt and hair were on fire, shattered an emergency box and then pried the doors open before leading a group of passengers out of the wreckage.

 

The SUV's driver, Ellen Brody, had stopped in traffic on the tracks, between the lowered crossing gates. Witnesses said Brody got out of her Mercedes SUV to inspect the damage to her vehicle before driving forward and being struck by the oncoming train.

 

A data recorder showed the train's engineer hit the emergency brakes and sounded the horn as it bore down on the Valhalla crossing, traveling 58 mph in a 60 mph zone, the National Transportation Safety Board has said.

 

Brody's husband has filed a wrongful death and negligence lawsuit against Metro-North, its parent agency, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the train's engineer. The lawsuit alleges that the crash was caused by a badly designed grade grossing and improper warning signs.

"She just didn't know she was on a railroad track," Brody's husband, Alan Brody, said Monday. "The warning signals were invisible."

 

Alan Brody says his wife got stuck in traffic that fateful night and ended up on the tracks with no room to move forward or backward. He says the Commerce Street crossing where she lost her life has insufficient signage and warning lights and that it's inherently unsafe. 

 

"This crossing really should be shut," he said. "They need to straighten the road. They need to change the signs so you can actually see them." 

 

Witnesses at the time questioned why Ellen Brody didn't back up her car when the lever came down and it was apparent the train was coming.

 

"Once you understand all the pieces, and how they came together, I think people will have a deeper understanding of what's really wrong, what really happened, and yes, that she is innocent," Brody said.

 

Brody is heading to Washington to hear the NTSB's findings in person, and perhaps put to rest years of questioning why his wife was killed.

 

"I just feel that the story has to be told and understood, and this is the moment when we hope it will be," he said. 

 

 
Published at 6:17 PM EDT on Jul 24, 2017 | Updated at 8:19 PM EDT on Jul 24, 2017
 

Copyright Associated Press / NBC4 Washington

Source: Rail Design Led to Deadliness of NY Train Crash: Official | NBC4 Washington http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/NTSB-Metro-North-Valhalla-Ellen-Brody-SUV-Deadly-Train-Crash-436359043.html#ixzz4nrE7xRCD 

 

They must have attended a different NTSB meeting...

 

From the NTSB themselves...

 

...

Driver’s Actions Led to Valhalla, NY, Grade Crossing Collision
7/25/2017

​WASHINGTON (July 25, 2017) — An SUV driver’s actions are the probable cause of a deadly 2015 collision between the SUV and a Metro-North commuter train at a grade crossing in Valhalla, New York, the National Transportation Safety Board found Tuesday.

The SUV driver died, along with five passengers on the train, in the Feb. 3, 2015, accident. The rail passengers were killed when 343 feet of the third rail, which powers the train, penetrated the floor of the first train car and struck passengers.

The NTSB’s investigation found the driver of the SUV moved her vehicle into the path of Metro-North commuter train 659. Investigators found traffic at the Commerce Street grade crossing was congested when the driver entered the boundary of the grade crossing and stopped. The grade crossing warning system activated properly and a gate came down, striking the rear of her Mercedes-Benz ML350. Witnesses said the driver exited the vehicle and examined where the gate hit her SUV. She then got back into the driver’s seat and moved onto the railroad tracks and into the path of the oncoming train. 

The train hit the vehicle at 51 m.p.h., pushing the SUV 665 feet down the track, while detaching the third rail. The introduction of sparks, flaming debris and fuel into the lead railcar started a fire.

As a result of the investigation the NTSB recommended local officials assess the safety of at-grade crossings, such as the Commerce Street crossing. The NTSB also recommended commuter railroads, like Metro North, that use third-rail power systems, at or near grade crossings, should assess their safety.

“Sadly, all of the NTSB’s work in railroad and highway safety to date did not prevent this tragic accident,’’ said Acting Chairman Robert L. Sumwalt. “But the recommendations we issued today could help to avoid future tragedies.  When people see railroad tracks, even at grade crossings, they need to think train, and maintain – or improve – their situational awareness. We recommended risk assessments by companies and agencies, and corrective actions as warranted by the assessment results,’’ Sumwalt said. “Any railroad passenger has the right to expect that everything possible is being done to assure their safety.”

The investigation found that Metro-North’s third rail system was not constructed to fail in a controlled manner or break away when subjected to overloaded conditions such as those involved in this accident. Also, the use of Metro-North’s current third rail system may increase the severity of railcar damage and serious injuries at grade crossing accidents.

The investigation ruled out the use of personal electronic devices or drugs and alcohol by both the SUV driver and the train engineer. Traffic signals, the performance of the train engineer and weather and track conditions were also ruled out as issues in this crash. There was no evidence to suggest the SUV driver unintentionally drove the vehicle forward due to the unconventional design of the SUVs transmission interface.

A link to the findings, probable cause and recommendations are available online at https://go.usa.gov/xR8hG.  The final report will be posted in several days.  The docket for this investigation is available at  https://go.usa.gov/xRk37.

Sounds like its squarely on the SUV driver...

 

I fully expect the lawsuit against Metro-North to be thrown out given the information in the NTSB investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They must have attended a different NTSB meeting...

 

From the NTSB themselves...

Sounds like its squarely on the SUV driver...

 

I fully expect the lawsuit against Metro-North to be thrown out given the information in the NTSB investigation.

I'm going to revert back to the information I posted earlier.  If the person behind the driver claims that they couldn't initially see the railroad tracks, then how would she be able to?  I mean I don't know, but something doesn't add up.  I know there are stupid people out there that don't pay attention, but the fact that there were safety measures that were supposed to be put in place that weren't means someone was negligent and perhaps the accident could've been avoided had such measures been implemented.  Yes, she drove onto the tracks.  There's no debating that. The question is could more have been done to make her and others more aware of the presence of the tracks in the first place?  I think that's what the lawyer representing the family will point to and argue.  This is a case about prevention and negligence.  In my mind what you're discussing is a separate issue.

 

Years ago, a young teen was walking down the street texting and fell into an open man hole.  There's no question that person should've been looking where they were going, but the family still sued (and won if I recall correctly), stating that they wouldn't have fell into the manhole in the first place if it would've been secured properly (it wasn't).

 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2009/jul/14/teenager-text-manhole-new-york

 

The link is old, but it points to another case where the plaintiff won (that McDonald's case is an infamous one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a sign posted before the RR tracks saying DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS

Yeah but where is it posted? If that was enough why were they planning on spending over $100,000 to make changes to the crossing?  That's a lot of money to spend on a crossing that was supposedly already safe.  If I were a juror, I would be asking myself that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the railroad gate came down on the car, shouldn’t that be a major warning sign? Obviously she might’ve not known what a hit it in the first place, the warning sounds were playing, she should’ve known better. This could’ve happened at any grade-level crossing I feel, this driver just didn’t know any better.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the railroad gate came down on the car, shouldn’t that be a major warning sign? Obviously she might’ve not known what a hit it in the first place, the warning sounds were playing, she should’ve known better. This could’ve happened at any grade-level crossing I feel, this driver just didn’t know any better.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

There's a few other factors that apparently come into play.  For starters, she was on a detour going through a rather dark stretch of road passing a cemetery. I've looked at a few videos of the crossing, and given the fact that it was dark AND there was snow about, some signage may have been blocked or obscured or both.  That's actually one of the things I thought about when I saw the original news story. I said wow where is this at? It's awfully dark. It's very easy to pass judgment since we weren't there, but no one in their right mind just drives onto railroad tracks.  I get the impression that she didn't know she was on the tracks and didn't realize she was in imminent danger.  I also saw video of how much time elapses before a train comes.  It's about 41 seconds after the gates come down. That is not exactly a lot of time to get out of that situation when it's dark out, snow on the ground and so on.  In fact I'd argue that the crossing needed to be much more visible, and this to me explains why they were going to spend over $100,000 in safety measures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh........did not realize so many factors were in play.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Yeah there's a lot more to it than people think.  I also think a big reason why the husband wants to sue is to clear his wife's name.  I mean I'm sure there are people out there that think she's just an idiot for not realizing a train was barreling down on her. I for one am shocked that there doesn't appear to be any real lighting in an area with a cemetery.   That's just crazy.  Essentially the only lights that you may get are from the actual railroad crossing and maybe a traffic light in the distance, and we don't know how obscured her view was because of the inclement weather (snow).

 

Found an interesting article about an almost identical accident in the same spot that killed a motorist in 1984:

 

Valhalla train crossing was site of 1984 fatal crash

Khurram Saeed, ksaeed@lohud.comPublished 2:24 p.m. ET Feb. 4, 2015 | Updated 12:25 p.m. ET March 25, 2016

     

The site of Tuesday's train-SUV crash at Commerce Street in Valhalla is the same place where a van driver was struck and killed by a train in 1984.
635586876530335048-Orangeburg-Western-HiBuy Photo

(Photo: Peter Carr/The Journal News)

 278CONNECTTWEETLINKEDIN 10COMMENTEMAILMORE

 

VALHALLA – The Commerce Street railroad crossing at the center of Tuesday's horrific crash has seen death before.

 

In October 1984, a cable company worker was waiting at the crossing in his van when it was struck by a train. The truck was dragged 750 feet, according to published reports. He later died. The collision occurred during the evening rush hour and forced service to shut down in both directions.

 

Tuesday night's crash at the same crossing left six people dead and more than a dozen seriously injured.

According to a witness, a 49-year-old Edgemont woman driving a black Mercedes sport utility vehicle found herself caught on the tracks waiting to get on the Taconic State Parkway when the warning gates came down. Ellen Brody got out of her car to check the damage but did not flee — either in her SUV or on foot — even as a northbound express train on the Harlem Line bore down on her.

 

The impact sparked a fiery explosion, killing the mother of three and five people on the train.

 

From 2012 to 2014, there were 81 accidents resulting in 15 deaths and 23 injuries at crossings in New York where railroad tracks cross a road at the same grade — such as Commerce Street, U.S. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney said. There are 5,304 grade crossings in New York. Many trains use bridges or tunnels that bypass populated areas or busy roads.

 

Safety at rail crossings needs more attention, Maloney said Wednesday during a conference call.

"We believe there is work to do in this area that is critically important, regardless of the specific facts of (Tuesday) night's accident," he said.

 

On Wednesday, Maloney, D-Cold Spring, introduced legislation that would reauthorize a federal program that provides local governments with money to relocate rail crossings to safer locations or build them above or below the tracks. He wants $100 million a year for the next four years for the program, which was last used in 2009.

 

"It's a good idea that has never been fully implemented, but it's high time we did it," Maloney said.

Maloney's neighbor and fellow Cold Spring resident Jim Lovell was killed in the December 2013 Metro-North Railroad derailment in the Bronx. Lovell's wife, Nancy, now works in Maloney's office.

 

Federal investigators will also look at the role of the equipment at the Valhalla crossing — which has a black box-like device — and what connection, if any, there was to reports of malfunctioning safety gates earlier Tuesday about a mile south at Virginia Road in North White Plains.

 

On Metro-North's Harlem Line, there are 40 grade crossings, followed by six on the Hudson Line and none on the main New Haven Line, although there are more than five dozen at-level crossings on its three offshoot lines in Connecticut. There are also a handful in Rockland and Orange counties.

 

The Commerce Street crossing leads to the Taconic State Parkway. It's only a few car lengths from the intersection and traffic can back up there. There are numerous crossings with similar issues across the region where road and rail come together, sometimes leaving drivers sitting on the tracks.

 

Source: http://www.lohud.com/story/news/transit/2015/02/04/valhallas-commerce-street-train-crossing-site-fatal-crash/22868251/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but where is it posted? If that was enough why were they planning on spending over $100,000 to make changes to the crossing?  That's a lot of money to spend on a crossing that was supposedly already safe.  If I were a juror, I would be asking myself that question.

Although they have a case, there's too much evidence against her, the MTA can't be held liable for bad weather impairing her vision, nor are they liable for her unfamiliarity of the area. When it comes down to it there was a law and she broke it, causing the accident. While for the manhole incident, there is no law regarding manhole, (Well at least none that I know of) so it was easier for the parents to sue for just plain negligence. Ultimately I have doubts that they'll win. But where are the other families in all of this? If I saw that they were suing I'd be furious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lost in all this is the condition of the engineer, who had to deal with fatalities only for doing his job. They'd better not come after him and I'm going to leave it at that.

 

supposedly i read they sued him, well the case against him should be dismissed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lost in all this is the condition of the engineer, who had to deal with fatalities only for doing his job. They'd better not come after him and I'm going to leave it at that.

 

He was a hero. He saved lives. He should be commended, and I will be mad if I find out that he did not get a raise!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although they have a case, there's too much evidence against her, the MTA can't be held liable for bad weather impairing her vision, nor are they liable for her unfamiliarity of the area. When it comes down to it there was a law and she broke it, causing the accident. While for the manhole incident, there is no law regarding manhole, (Well at least none that I know of) so it was easier for the parents to sue for just plain negligence. Ultimately I have doubts that they'll win. But where are the other families in all of this? If I saw that they were suing I'd be furious.

lol. What you're saying is simply not true. I posted an article of another driver that was killed at the exact same crossing, with their car dragged by the train just like this lady. Clearly the people who could've made a difference knew that there was a problem, which was why over $100,000 dollars was allocated to make safety improvements at and around the crossing, but such changes never came to fruition, so you have examples of negligence right there that could've been avoided. The manhole situation was also negligence because the workers had a duty to secure it after working on it and didn't, so in short the lawsuit is about whether or not this incident could've been prevented with better safety measures put in place. The people that could've made that happen but didn't may include the (MTA). What the NTSB provided was a report. We can't go off of that alone. The jury will be asked to look at ALL of the evidence. All the lawyer of the family has to do is show examples in which this happened before (I already posted an incident that happened before), show a lack of regard for fixing the problem (monies were allocated but never used to fix the problem they knew about) and show an ongoing pattern that could've prevented this. It isn't just the (MTA) involved in this lawsuit but several other parties. Given the weather conditions that evening, along with the lack of lighting in the area, I think they have a pretty good case. There's also the eyewitness that stated that he originally did not see the train tracks until she was already on them. That says a lot.

 

There are others suing. There have been 34 notices of claim against the (MTA) all claiming negligence. The family just happened to be the first to file notice. That's why they're in the spotlight.

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.