Widow files suit against Metrolink

[trainboyH16-44]

LOS ANGELES - The widow of the sheriff's deputy who died in a Metrolink chain-reaction derailment in Glendale on January 26 filed a lawsuit Monday against the commuter agency, alleging that the train her husband was riding in was unsafe because its locomotive was in the rear, according to a story published in the Los Angeles Times and other news sources. James Tutino was riding in a train that lacked "adequate safeguards" because it was being pushed rather than pulled by a locomotive, according to the lawsuit filed by his widow, Rita Kay Tutino.

"This tragedy occurred because the train was in push-mode," said Tutino's lawyer, Jerome Ringler, who is representing about a dozen other plaintiffs over the derailment that killed 11 passengers and injured about 180 others.

Some rail safety experts say trains pulled by a locomotive, rather than pushed, are safer because the locomotive provides added protection for passengers in a head-on collision. They also say that pushed trains are more likely to derail because the cab car in front, lighter than a locomotive, can be derailed more easily. Others say the research is not conclusive and that having a locomotive in front at all times would either be too costly or not feasible.

Eleven counts of murder with "special circumstances" were filed against Juan Manuel Alvarez, 25, who authorities said appeared to originally have been trying to commit suicide after driving his car onto the tracks. An investigation later determined that Alvarez was trying to gain the attention of his wife, Carmelita Alvarez. The couple had separated, and Alvarez's wife had obtained a restraining order against him.

According to authorities, Alvarez drove his car onto the tracks and then stood nearby and watched as the vehicle was hit shortly after 6 a.m. by southbound Metrolink train 100, which then derailed and started a deadly chain reaction with a Metrolink train passing in the opposite direction, as well as a parked Union Pacific ballast train. It was the nation's deadliest train accident in nearly six years.

That is a TRAINS news article form yesterday. How can the widow say that it was "Unsafe"? The train was perfectly safe for normal operating conditions, it just hit an SUV! A truck hits an SUV on the highway and flips over, is it Unsafe? No! A car hits an SUV and is totalled, is it unsafe? No. This is just being silly, and if this works, I'll laugh. What do you guys think?
Trainboy

[AntonioFP45]

Unfortunately, talented lawyers are often convincing enough to persuade judges and juries to hear cases like this.

Just my opinion of course, it is very likely that if the locomotive had been in the front position the SUV would have been demolished and dragged down the track. The injuries on the train would have been from the engineer going into emergency braking.

Dual, full powered locomotives on commuter trains are very costly. There is one other option that provides protection and is still fuel efficient. converted locomotive "Cabs Cars". These are locomotives that are stripped of their diesel powerplants but still have electrical equipment and cable connections that allows the engineer's control stand to be used to for push-pull train operation.

Hindsight is almost always 20/20.

Still this guy, not Metrolink, is responsible for those deaths. Yet, I wonder how long before the ACLU comes to this guy's aid and paints Metrolink as "the real villain". Don't be surprised if this happens.

[RoyalOaker]

I think these kind of lawsuits have the potential to destroy our country.

This was not a malicious action that was taken by metrolink. They had been operating like this for years without serious problems.

Now, if Metrolink knew that the truck was there and knew that thier train was going to derail and they still allowed the accident to happen, Then I would say a lawsuit is in order.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the two previous comments. No way was this Metrolink's fault - if the same guy had driven onto a highway against the flow of traffic who would they blame then? Operating push-pull is an accepted practise the world over - in Germany they even have an high-speed express (the ICE 2) which has a power car at one end and a driving trailer at the other, and it works well. Problems with this way of working only occur when something goes wrong with the track - this can be someone leaving a concrete block on the line, a selfish idiot trying to kill themselves without worrying about anyone else, or problems such as broken rails that would derail a loco too. I can understand the anger of the families of the victims, but Metrolink isn't the villain here.

Now, a lawsuit against the idiot who parked on the track, that I'd support...

[twhite]

While my sympathy is with the widow in this tragedy, she's suing the wrong party. She should be suing one self-centered, stupid, homocidal, deranged idiot called Juan Manuel Alvarez and the money-hungry automobile dealership that provided this sorry excuse for a human being the gas-guzzling hulk of an SUV to begin with. And if the ACLU steps in to protect said homocidal idiot called Juan Manuel Alvarez, she should sue THEM!! Lady's got the right idea, but the wrong target.
Tom [banghead]

[rrinker]

Problem is, Mr. Alvarez probably doesn't have any money. Certainly not millions and millions of dollars.
I knwo some of you are lawyers, and will jump right in saying it was't the lawyer who sued, it was this woman. But come on, do you REALLY think she thought all this up on her own? Maybe you personally would never go to these extremes to get a case, but apparantly some do- and those bad apples MUST be weeded out. Naturally when the public calls for some solution, it is WAY over the top - because by the time relief comes, the problem has grown too out of hand. You end up with over-regulation which ends up hurting the people you supposedly are helping. The recent happenings in the financial world shoudl be a wakeup call to others. Had existing laws and a little internal policing gone on, the overbearing nature of SOX would never have happened.

--Randy

[trainboyH16-44]

Forgive me, but what is the ACLU, and what does it do?
Trainboy

[tstage]

Matthew,

That would be the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In a nutshell, the ACLU is pretty much a humanistic association that supports and defends the so-called rights of anything or anybody that is controversial. Their biggest concern and agenda is making sure that we - the citizens of the United States - enjoy freedom FROM religion, rather than freedom OF religion. (They'll probably sue me for saying this. Oh, well.)

Tom

[Virginian]

The ACLU is a left wing pimp organization.
Lawyers making laws is the biggest conflict of interest in the history of the world.
Lawsuits are about money, not right and wrong.

[trainboyH16-44]

AHHH! tstage, How did you know my name?[:O]
Oh, well, thanks for the info.
Matthew Hicks

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainboyH16-44

That is a TRAINS news article form yesterday. How can the widow say that it was "Unsafe"? The train was perfectly safe for normal operating conditions, it just hit an SUV! A truck hits an SUV on the highway and flips over, is it Unsafe? No! A car hits an SUV and is totalled, is it unsafe? No. This is just being silly, and if this works, I'll laugh. What do you guys think?
Trainboy

Not silly at all. While the incident was certainly not precipitated by Metrolink, anyone who fully understands the principals of physics knows that it has to be far safer for the passengers to have the locomotive in the lead rather than a far lighter and less ridgid control car. Likewise, the fact that the enormous mass-in-motion of the locomotive will continue to crush and destroy any cars between it and the point of first impact/derailment for some seconds after the impact actually begins can not be dismissed. Whether the powers that be want to admit it or not, running a passenger train at speed with the locomotive at the rear pushing is not a safe practice.

CNJ831

[IRONROOSTER]

The ACLU defends the rights of the individual against encroachment by the government. While it is frequently lambasted, it is an organization we all need to help preserve our freedoms especially in the current times when the government seeks to take them away in the name of security. We may not always like the individuals it defends or the things they like to do but it's not freedom if we all have to act and think the same way.
Enjoy
Paul

[tstage]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainboyH16-44

AHHH! tstage, How did you know my name?[:O]
Oh, well, thanks for the info.
Matthew Hicks

Matthew,

Double-clicked on your profile name. Wahlah!...Matthew Hicks.

Tom

[Anonymous]

Sheesh, I see many of you havent delevoped past the "ACLU IS FOR CARD CARRYING COMMIES, VOTE NIXON" mindset.

The ACLU has done plenty good for this country and will continue to do, it protects expression and basic civil rights, hey isnt model railroading a form of expression, what if UP said tomorrow "You cant have models of our equipment because its contridicting intellectual property rights, if you wi***o own any equipment that is of Union pacfic or any of the companys that have been taken over you must pay a monthly useage fee" the ACLU would be right there to hear thousands of modelers cases. And I dont really see the ACLU getting involved in this one, noones rights are being trampled on, this womans lawsuit is really really unfounded, the dunderhead who parked his SUV on the tracks is the****hole to sue in this situation.

Its dangerous to be a liberal in this hobby sometimes.

[DMNolan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Virginian

Lawyers making laws is the biggest conflict of interest in the history of the world.
Lawsuits are about money, not right and wrong.

Well, if you knew much about how laws were made, you wouldn't post comments like that. The percentage of lawmakers who are lawyers has been in decline for decades. Many times you have legislators who propose laws, who don't understand the effect the law will have once it is in place. If you took a survey around the states, most would tell you the real problem with laws getting passed, is becuase of special interest groups.

Obviously you have never been injured, sued, or had need of a lawyer or you would understand lawsuits are about righting a wrong, which may include money.

[Roadtrp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831
[Not silly at all. While the incident was certainly not precipitated by Metrolink, anyone who fully understands the principals of physics knows that it has to be far safer for the passengers to have the locomotive in the lead rather than a far lighter and less ridgid control car. Likewise, the fact that the enormous mass-in-motion of the locomotive will continue to crush and destroy any cars between it and the point of first impact/derailment for some seconds after the impact actually begins can not be dismissed. Whether the powers that be want to admit it or not, running a passenger train at speed with the locomotive at the rear pushing is not a safe practice.

CNJ831

[#ditto]

Metrolink certainly did not CAUSE the accident. But the configuration of the train made the results worse than it would have been otherwise. I would not knowingly get on a train being pushed from the rear.

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Virginian

The ACLU is a left wing pimp organization.
Lawyers making laws is the biggest conflict of interest in the history of the world.
Lawsuits are about money, not right and wrong.

Left wing pimp organization. Yeah, that's why the ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh.
http://www.paincare.org/about/message.php?id=187

andre

[davekelly]

Interesting. Was wondering how long this would take. Just some thoughts here:

Yes, metrolink didn't cause the accident, but the theory most likely being used by the plaintiff is that metrolink's negligence (I'm not sayint metrolink was negligent - but I'm guessing this is what the plaintiff's are saying) made the accident worse. In other words. Some guy rear ends your car. In order to save money the auto manufacturer used cardboard for the bumper and bumper supports resulting in the gas tank exploding. Yes, the manufacturer didn't cause the accident, but could something have been done to make the car safer? Was such an accident foreseable by the manufacturer? (In any negligence case one of the keys is foreseeablitliy). Does anyone remember the Pinto? I doubt very much that Ford caused any of those accidents.

The "it's been done this way for years" may or may not be a defense in a negligence suit. While industry standard will be looked at, if it is decided that the whole industry is doing something unsafe, then it isn't a defense.

No, I'm sure the woman didn't think up this case on her own. That's the lawyer's job. And yes, if a client came to me I would throw out this very option. Wouldn't you want your lawyer to do the same?

Would your opinion of liability change if it is found that the cost to Metrolink to add the trackage to switch the engine position would have cost maybe $10,000 a year but Metrolink didn't want to spend the money? How about if Metrolink has such a report and a report saying that a collision running engine last would most likely kill upwards of 20 people and Metrolink said "yeah well, $!0,000 is 10,000? I'm not saying this is true, but if it were indeed true, would it change anyone's opinion? Would Metrolink still be an innocent party?

I am not a plaintiff's lawyer, but I find sentences like "the lawyer always gets the jury to believe him" kind of demeaning. There's a lawyer on the other side - I guess these big corporations aren't smart enough to hire a good one. There's also a thing called a jury. While we all cry "outrage" at these things, how can it be that juries just don't seem to agree? I often find those that complain the most are the ones most likely to brag about getting out of jury duty.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

[Roadtrp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly

There's also a thing called a jury. While we all cry "outrage" at these things, how can it be that juries just don't seem to agree?

We have met the enemy and he is us... [;)]

It is not the lawyers but the juries that make awards of millions of dollars for spilling hot coffee in your lap. Fortunately, most of the more outlandish JURY awards are either set aside or greatly reduced by the judge hearing the case (who of course is also a LAWYER).

[soapbox]

(Edited to remove excess space at bottom of post)

[Virginian]

I have been sued. For $350 million. I won. Having that kind of thing hanging over one is not conducive to sleeping well.
I didn't say the ACLU was a commie organization, I said they were a liberal organization. I know the difference. I stand by that. They pick and choose which liberties to defend, and they are very choosy.
I say lawyers making laws is a conflict of interest. I stand by that. If tort reform were ever addressed, to the point that a contract was an ironclad entity, and an individual could have the "RIGHT" to waive or sell his personal liability rights, or a portion thereof, everything could get cheaper. The group with the most at stake to lose is lawyers. Thus all we hear is talk about tort reform. I do not excuse the non-lawyers in our legislative bodies. Having seen a lot of laws, all I can plead in their defense is gross stupidity. But, what can you expect when we elect the best liar who is promising to put the most chicken in my pot (or your pot, or their pot)?
Lawsuits are about money. They are the un-official lottery. Millions dream of getting a happenstance that will make them the wonderful plaintiff in a lawsuit. Juries award huge sums in the hope someday they will be on the receiving end. A man in NYC tried to commit suicide by jumping in front of a subway train. He admitted all this, in court. He did not die, he lost both legs. He sued the Port Authority. He was awarded a million dollars. A guy who was hit riding a bicycle at night, sued the bike manufacturer saying they didn't tell him he needed lights at night. That miserly jury only gave him $450 thousand. We seem to like to reward bad behavior.
If you could board a steam excursion, and sign away your liability rights, or at least limit them, to do so, and have it mean anything, I say again IF, you could ride a train this summer. But we cannot be allowed to do that.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion(s). I have formed a lot of mine along the not so primrose lined path of life. I wish all an easier journey.

[selector]

A grievance can be abetted, or exacerbated, by ancillary factors, such as a train that is pushed as opposed to pulled. That will be the position taken by the plaintif (who will be REPRESENTED BY lawyers). The Company will have to show convincing emprical evidence that pushed trains are no more likely to result in either injury or death on a statistical basis. Not sure how that will work. A stiff neck is nine points of the law.....or words to that effect, when a jury of sundry citizens is asked to render an opinion.

As for the ACLU, they are a secularist organization that endorses Marxist theory about interest-based principles in human behaviour. Basically, if I don't like what you do/don't do, you are not allowed to do it/not do it, because it offends me. You have to prove, in court, or in front of a tribunal, that the argument has NO merit. The mere mention that it is offensive is enought to get the wheels of justice spinning.

Reminds me of an old ditty:

"Let the wheels of Justic spin.
March the guilty *** in."
"Guilty or not guilty, what shall I say?"
"Shut up! Guilty! March him away."

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Virginian

...
I didn't say the ACLU was a commie organization, I said they were a liberal organization. I know the difference. I stand by that. They pick and choose which liberties to defend, and they are very choosy.
...

Uh actually you said

QUOTE: Originally posted by Virginian
The ACLU is a left wing pimp organization.
...

Not quite the same thing - at least for many of us.

I think we have reached the end of usefulness on this thread. Time to get back to railroading the 1:64 kind.

Enjoy
Paul

[JohnT14808]

Let's do a "what if" scenario.....

Let's say the reason for the crash was a "stalled truck" with the rear part of the truck sticking out into the track right of way and the MetroLiner struck the back of the truck. The driver and others were trying to pu***he truck OFF the tracks, but the approaching train made them stop and get clear. A true "accident", not an evil planned event.

Does the woman's suit have a better or lesser view in the eyes of the law? Is the salient point of the lawsuit the fact that the "train" was a pusher, instead of what most folks expect in a train with the engine in the front.....now that the event was not a planned one? People were still killed or injured. Who's at fault? Anyone...or is this still a frivilous suit?

[davekelly]

Paul,

Tried to slip that one by us!!! Well it's not going to work mister. We're getting back to 1:87 railroading!!

lol . . . . hope you know I'm just teasing!

Interesting footnote. The commie organization once represented the Nazi's during the Skokie thing.


JohnT,

You're starting to sound like one of my old law school professors!!! There we are all smiling away that we just pegged that question and he would say (with a smile) "ok . . . what if ...................." Man he was the best. Forced you to think vice just memorize.

[IRONROOSTER]

davekelly,

Wondered if anyone would notice.[(-D]

I remember the Nazi - Skokie issue, must be getting old.

Enjoy
Paul

[MisterBeasley]

When you think about the push-pull issue, it's not as simple as just adding a run-around track. The locomotives are typically NOT bi-directional, so either the commuter lines are going to have to buy new equipment, or they will need enough space for a wye, since they aren't likely to go to Walthers for a 1:1 scale turntable. They would need this at each end of every line.

This was never an issue when the cars themselves were powered, like RDC's or the electrified units on the Long Island Railroad outside New York.

And as for the ACLU, well, an airplane needs both a right wing and a left wing to fly, preferably without a lot of flakes on the wingtips. We need both points of view, but personally, I like flying in the fuselage. I'd rather have the pilot there, too, but in the last few elections that hasn't really been an option.

[davekelly]

MisterBeasley,

I've never heard of an analogy to an airplane before. I love it!!!

Good point about not only needing a runaround track. If anything, it will be interesting to see what come from this event. Perhaps we'll all learn something good.

[gmpullman]

I think all the airlines that operate aircraft with the engines in the rear, PUSHING the passenger compartment should be just as liable. If a mountain gets in the way those engines just keep thrusting until everything looks like a crushed beer can!
Unsafe practise! Sue Sue Sue!!!
Ed

[jimrice4449]

If anybody out there wants to defend the American Criminal Lovers' Union you can start by itemizing the number of times they've defended anybody's second Ammendment rights or the first Ammendment rights of a pro-life demonstrator.

[Bikerdad]

The merits of the case come down to this: was Metrolink's decision to run in push mode reasonable? In a world of unlimited resources, no, it wouldn't be reasonable. In a world where they can't secure the land for Wyes, where they'd have to reduce service by 25% to put locos on both ends, etc, then the answer very well may be "yes."

Physics dictates that having big honkin' heavy, dense locos on both ends is the safest approach. Safest doesn't necessarily equate to reasonable once the restrictions of economics come into play.

As for the ACLU, lets just say that a) the ACLU that defended the *** at Skokie is a creature of the past, not the present ACLU, b) the good that they do today is vastly outweighed by the bad.