Here come the counter suits:Trucking company in Amtrak train crash countersues Amtrak, Union Pacific
That is so absurd. Sounds like this will be a long battle for the courts.
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! 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:
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.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.
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.The problem that I see with the countersuit: is there a leg to stand on? Nope.
That's a great big "IF" there.IF you are maintaining a safe interval.
Should I sueInterstate highway crossing ahead! Vehicles may be moving at 65-80 MPH! Cross with caution!
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....somebody needs a frivilous suit ruling against them, and their attorney could do with a good contempt charge from an irate judge.
No such turns. Your friend here can be Google maps. Visibiliy at this crossing is approximately 1/2 mile.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.
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.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.The problem that I see with the countersuit: is there a leg to stand on? Nope.
Dan
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.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.
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).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....somebody needs a frivilous suit ruling against them, and their attorney could do with a good contempt charge from an irate judge.
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.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).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....somebody needs a frivilous suit ruling against them, and their attorney could do with a good contempt charge from an irate judge.
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.
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.No such turns. Your friend here can be Google maps. Visibiliy at this crossing is approximately 1/2 mile.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.
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.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.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).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....somebody needs a frivilous suit ruling against them, and their attorney could do with a good contempt charge from an irate judge.
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.
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.
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: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.No such turns. Your friend here can be Google maps. Visibiliy at this crossing is approximately 1/2 mile.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.
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.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.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.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).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....somebody needs a frivilous suit ruling against them, and their attorney could do with a good contempt charge from an irate judge.
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.
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.
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).
Enter your email address to join: