Here come the counter suits:Trucking company in Amtrak train crash countersues Amtrak, Union Pacific
Countersuits in Nevada crossing crash
- Thread starter GaSteve
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
amamba
Engineer
That is so absurd. Sounds like this will be a long battle for the courts.
Ryan
Court Jester
The fact that the other trucks in the convoy were able to stop in plenty of time pretty much blows a hole in that case.
The Sharks are in the water as the meter runs! 
As the old saying went: 'I Love the Smell of Money!!" :angry:
I'm no lawyer but believe this may be part of Legal Stratergy that leads to Limited Liability or even Bankruptcy?? Perhaps one of our Attorney Members has the dope on this! :help:
As the old saying went: 'I Love the Smell of Money!!" :angry:I'm no lawyer but believe this may be part of Legal Stratergy that leads to Limited Liability or even Bankruptcy?? Perhaps one of our Attorney Members has the dope on this! :help:
Last edited by a moderator:
wkaemena
Lead Service Attendant
What an absurd idea!! Everybody knows that the train has the preference because it cannot and has not to stop at grade crossings. In many countries the basic rules for rail crossings are STOP LOOK LISTEN and then cross. Imagine if the trucking company wins.... every 5000t train hast to stop at every road crossing....hahhahaahah and watch out for speeding truck drivers.....
Countersuits are standard legal strategy in lawsuits. Purpose can be to provide reasons to request additional depositions & discovery and also put some pressure to settle rather than drag it out in court proceedings.The Sharks are in the water as the meter runs!
I'm no lawyer but believe this may be part of Legal Stratergy that leads to Limited Liability or even Bankruptcy?? Perhaps one of our Attorney Members has the dope on this! :help:
The problem that I see with the countersuit: is there a leg to stand on? Nope.
Bierboy
OBS Chief
Not really...that has absolutely nothing to do with whether the crossing was safely maintained. They were behind the truck that slammed into the CZ....it's easy to stop in time when you see the truck in front of you crash into a train IF you are maintaining a safe interval.
Last edited by a moderator:
There were other near accidents at that same crossing, one where a truck hit something or other that ended up hitting the train. I forget the circumstances but the truck nearly hit the train, last year if I recall correctly. Seems like a conductor said there are near misses there on occasion. It doesn't mean the truck drive in this case was not at fault but there was a problem at that crossing. My totally uninformed opinion is that the driver was distracted by something and is at fault. BUT, with other close calls there in the past perhaps it is a rather unsafe crossing. If so, I hope something is done to make it safer.
Dan
Ryan
Court Jester
That's a great big "IF" there.
VentureForth
Engineer
I believe there is a case to be made with regards to the approach. IIRC, the road and the track both have a slight s-turn which could result in a delayed observance of a signal. Also, the train being on the drivers right could create a misperception of the trains path.
I know all the above sound ridiculous. Just on circumstantial evidence, I believe the truck was hauling too fast, coupled with a bit of inattention. Might could throw in bad signal timing and maybe a bit of jockeying. All said and done, this is a shops place to have a grade crossing, but I think the driver was all fault.
I know all the above sound ridiculous. Just on circumstantial evidence, I believe the truck was hauling too fast, coupled with a bit of inattention. Might could throw in bad signal timing and maybe a bit of jockeying. All said and done, this is a shops place to have a grade crossing, but I think the driver was all fault.
the_traveler
Engineer
I tried to walk across I-95 from the woods and was almost hit by a car!
I didn't see any warning signs in the woods saying
for not providing me with enough warning?
I'll file the paperwork on Monday!
Should I sue
- the federal Government,
- RIDOT,
- the state of RI,
- the county of Washington and
- the town of Richmond
for not providing me with enough warning?
henryj
Conductor
I have a good friend that is an attorney for the UP. He says they always loose those grade crossing accidents. The other side only has to prove something like 10% negligence for them to win it. A bush in the way, a horn not blown correctly, most anything will do. Even the crews end up suing their own railroad. That crossing at a major highway has seemingly always been a problem. Even though to us the truck is obviously at fault, the courts and juries will not see it that way. They go after the big money.
Nothing frivolous about the counter lawsuit. Standard legal maneuver. The judge will not be irate or concerned. The legal actions on the accident are probably going to drag out for a year or two because not much can move forward until there are official accident reports from the NTSB and the Nevada authorities.
George Harris
Engineer
No such turns. Your friend here can be Google maps. Visibiliy at this crossing is approximately 1/2 mile.
About the only thing that could be done to make it safer would be a grade separation (i.e., an overpass) for the highway. I suppose the speed limit could be lowered for trucks to give their drivers more time to make a decision as to whether or not to stop when they see the signals start to flash; however, that would seem to require the use of more state police who may (rightly) believe they have better things to do than observe the speeds of trucks on remote stretches of highway. Other than that, requiring all large vehicles, including trucks (whether carrying hazmat or not) to stop would seem to be the only alternative. Depending on how the counter-suit goes, one of these solutions (or another, if there is one I haven't considered) might well be implemented.
Aloha
What no one has addressed is the length of the skid marks, So what was the trucks speed. The highest anywhere in the State of Nevada is 80mph. What is is at that part of 95 I don't know, but on 95 near my place in LV it is 70mph. Anyone know the stopping distance of that weight Semi from 70mph and then from 100mph. Which is the speed that I suspect is closer to what I believe he was doing.
What no one has addressed is the length of the skid marks, So what was the trucks speed. The highest anywhere in the State of Nevada is 80mph. What is is at that part of 95 I don't know, but on 95 near my place in LV it is 70mph. Anyone know the stopping distance of that weight Semi from 70mph and then from 100mph. Which is the speed that I suspect is closer to what I believe he was doing.
Because the truck did not come to a full stop before hitting the train, may be problematic to estimate the truck's speed when he hit the brakes. They would have to figure out pretty closely the speed of the truck when he hit side of the trans-dorm car to work back to initial speed based on the length and pattern of the skid marks. If the truck was caught on the outer edges of the P42 video as it approached the crossing, that would give them something to use to estimate speed. Or any other videos that we have not heard about. The other 2 trucks in the convoy could likely provide answers on their speed, but the drivers have good reason to fudge downward any speed numbers they would tell the NTSB and state police.
Given that the truck engine and much of the tractor cab ended up embedded in the trans-dorm car, and this after going into the skid with the truck starting to fishtail, safe to say that the truck was going pretty fast. Just how fast is what the NTSB will have to figure out.
Standard legal trick or not, especially if the trucker was well over the speed limit, this is stupid. Then again, I also tend to believe that there's a line that one can cross where one ought to be denied any cause of action when one was behaving insanely stupidly (or brazenly violating the law).
Edit: To explain, I'll offer an example: "Even if he did run the red light, you were doing 120 MPH in a drag race through a 35 MPH zone." And, of course, the counter: "Even if he was going 120 MPH, the light was clearly red and you didn't even slow down, let alone stop." In other words, one's own negligence should, in at least some cases, be enough to void any cause of action against someone else. This might leave some accidents completely immune to suits (i.e. where there was immense mutual stupidity), but that does seem better than the court trying to sort out who was more grossly negligent.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's hardly a trick it's being done to preserve any legal rights the trucking company may have and may also be so they can forward alternative theories of the case. I'd suggest you read up on something called "negligence per se" which is what you are trying to argue in one part. You might also wish to look up and read about the concepts or contributory negligence and comparative fault which is what you are trying to raise in the second part of your post. Nevada is a modified comparative fault jurisdiction N.R.S. § 41-141 is the applicable statute relating to that. Remember this too, you may think it's stupid that there is a countersuit but you also do not know all of the facts of the case either outside of what was reported in the media or speculated to in forums such as this. These are also issues for the "finder of fact" to determine.
Now I would also say that the type of harm that occurred was not meant to be prevented by the speed limit rule so any violation of that I would argue strongly against being negligence per se.
VentureForth
Engineer
This is the view from 1/4 mile away. Though I'm sure you can see the train's headlights from here, I doubt you can see the flashing lights. Though the visibility is almost perfect, perception of depth and distance can be quite deceiving.
Looking at a summary of this, it seems to me that the driver would be over 51% at fault and that a failure to blow a horn would not save them from that. Of course, I say this (as you say) not having full access to any piles of data on the accident that might be available but not passed around in the media. Not having access to actual speed recordings, etc., I would say that if the driver was going more than 15-20 MPH over the speed limit, that would be negligence per se.
The problem that I have with the suit is that, in essence, UP and Amtrak are likely going to be forced to spend a lot of money to deal with what I suspect will be overblown allegations (though I know the reason the lines are used, I cannot help but snicker at some of the lines used about all the gloom and doom that an adverse ruling will bring about).
Rolling down the Highway with the pedal to the metal, crossing the desert in my empty gravel hauler, gotta hurry up and get to where I can load up since I get paid based on how much I haul! Maybe Ill call or text my buddy, and gotta crank up that latest CD by that singer I like! What's that horn blowing, where did that Damn Superliner Train come from!
opps, better try to stop, too late gotta try to swerve, oops, it jackknifed on me, goodbye bigger paycheck, Damn! ( Beginning scene from a new Episode of "The Twilght Zone!") :wacko:No excuses for this Truck Hitting the Zephyr, None!!! Amtrak doesnt hunt down Innocent Trucks and run them down! Of course everyone is entitled to their day in Court, hiring a lawyer (how's Nevada Prison treating you O.J.?)and try to weasel out! Mostly it's the Insurance Companies that try to avoid paying out money to real people as opposed to lawyers! (aka Hired Guns!)
As I and others have said, we're not lawyers but does Anyone actually think that Amtrak is any way at fault or liable in this?? :help: A person with common sense would say Nope! :excl: :excl: :excl:
Last edited by a moderator:
And again I would say that the type of harm that occurred is not the type of harm the statute was intended to prevent and as such not negligence per se. Just as an FYI if the judge deems the countersuit frivolous then Amtrak/UP would be entitled to receive their costs from the trucking company. However, I am not going to try this case on these forums particularly without all the discovery available to the parties and without the NTSB's report being completed. Trying to do so at this juncture would be irresponsible. I also believe that this will never see trial and will be settled out of court.
- Status
