Three Muni operators and the taxicab driver were injured and whisked to San Francisco hopitals. The injuries were not critical. If you or a loved one are involved in an accident, contract a lawyer immediately.

If you or a loved one have been involved in an accident with a taxi call now and talk to a lawyer for free about your case.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Metrolink has a much greater fatality rate than most larger systems in the country. While Metrolink’s ridership is the seventh-largest in the nation among commuter rail systems, it has the second-highest number of deaths, behind only New Jersey Transit, whose trains travel six times as many miles as Metrolink trains on a yearly basis and carry five times as many passengers. An analysis of the Federal Railroad Administration revealed that in one six-year period, 39 out of 61 passenger fatalities across the nation involved Metrolink trains. Metrolink disasters in Chatsworth in 2008 and Glendale in 2005 accounted for nearly all of the 39 deaths. From 1998 to 2008, Metrolink has had 99 fatalities—more than other commuter rail systems with nearly eight times the ridership.

There are many causes of Metrolink accidents: collisions with other Metrolink commuter trains or with freight trains they share the track with; inattentiveness of the engineer or conductor; failure to see or inadequate or inoperative signals warning of another train on the tracks; derailments due to poorly maintained tracks; faulty maintenance of the train; and non-compliance with safety standards.

Passengers are more likely to be killed or severely injured in a crash in which the Metrolink train is in “push” mode. In traditional “pull” mode, the locomotive engine is at the front of the cars. In push mode, the engine is at the rear and a “car cab” carrying passengers, with the engineer in a small area at the front, is in the lead. This cab car has earned the nickname “coffin car,” for its lack of protection in head-on collisions with other trains.

On a January morning in 2005, a man who claimed he was suicidal drove his Jeep Grand Cherokee onto the tracks in Glendale and doused the interior of the SUV with gasoline. At the last minute, however, the man changed his mind and jumped from the vehicle, leaving the gasoline-drenched SUV parked in the middle of the tracks. Moments later, a Metrolink commuter train being operated in “push” mode struck the SUV and derailed. The train hit a parked freight locomotive, then collided with another Metrolink commuter train traveling in the opposite direction. Because it was being operated in the “push” mode, this meant that a passenger car bore the brunt of the initial impact. The crash resulted in a total of 11 deaths and 180 people being injured. (The driver of the SUV was charged and convicted of 11 murders, and was sentenced to 11 life terms in prison.)

In June 2008, a California intermediate appellate court held that the injured victims could not base their lawsuit on Metrolink’s use of the push method, as that area of law is preempted by federal regulations, which does not prohibit the use of the push-pull system. The court concluded that federal regulations permit the use of an occupied cab car in the lead position of a “Tier I” commuter train. A Tier I commuter train is one that operates at speeds below 125 miles per hour. A Tier II commuter train operates at speeds from 125 to 150 miles per hour, but passengers on a Tier II commuter train cannot ride in the cab when it is the leading car.

On September 12, 2008, a Metrolink commuter train collided head-on with a Union Pacific freight train in Chatsworth, killing 25 people and injuring some 135 more. Unlike the deadly Glendale crash, in the Chatsworth crash the train was being pulled by a locomotive. Had it been in push mode, the number of deaths and serious injuries surely would have been considerably higher. According to Metrolink’s own spokesperson 24 hours after the accident, the engineer had failed to stop for a red light warning of another train on the same track ahead. (More than half of Metrolink’s system is single-track, which means it must be shared with freight trains, making the functioning and visibility of signal lights critical to the safe use of the tracks.) The train’s engineer was found allegedly to have been text-messaging young train enthusiasts some 22 seconds before the impact. The conductor aboard the Metrolink train allegedly said that he warned a supervisor about the engineer’s on-duty cell phone use months before the deadly wreck. Other evidence revealed that the engineer permitted unauthorized teenage train enthusiasts to ride in the locomotive, although that was not the case in the accident in question.

Metrolink has a duty to install and maintain its signal lights in good working order, and its conductors and engineers have a duty to obey them. In the Chatsworth incident, there is a dispute as to whether other signal lights were flashing yellow or red, indicating the presence of an oncoming train. The engineer allegedly failed to heed yellow and red signals. Because trains are heavy and difficult to stop quickly, the light system tells the engineer what to do two or three signals ahead. Besides allegedly running the red light, the engineer did not apply the brakes prior to the crash. After the accident, the Public Utilities Commission banned the use of cell phones by train engineers. The conductor of the Union Pacific freight train was himself texting while in the locomotive cab sitting next to the engineer, and he tested positive for marijuana.

Following the Chatsworth crash, Metrolink added a second person to its locomotive cabs, reduced speeds in restricted-speed zones, installed cameras, and began installing more visible signal bulbs. Adding a “second set of eyes” to the locomotives has been criticized on the basis that the two engineers could get into a conversation that would affect their concentration. In fact, two engineers were in a Metrolink train that ran a red signal and sideswiped a freight train several weeks after the deadly Chatsworth crash. In order to improve the structural integrity of its cars, Metrolink has ordered trailer and cab cars with new safety features.

The Amtrak Reform Accountability Act of 1997 limits the amount of damages that can be received by all injured passengers and heirs of deceased passengers to a total of $200 million. The legal validity or constitutionality of this limit has not yet been tested, but most likely will be scrutinized if the claims from the Chatsworth collision exceed $200 million. Note, however, that this limit does not apply to persons who were injured or killed who were not passengers on the train.

After the Chatsworth tragedy, the United States Congress approved the Rail Safety Improvement Act, which requires railway agencies to install, by the end of December 2015, a satellite-linked system that will automatically stop trains that run red lights. This is called a “positive train control,” and uses satellite-tracking devices to monitor the speed and location of trains and can automatically stop trains that bypass signals, exceed speed limits, or head toward an obstacle on the tracks. Metrolink is also looking at “automatic train stop” devices, a 1940s technology that would automatically stop a train that runs a signal. This is being considered as an interim step until positive train control can be installed. Also being considered by Metrolink as interim measures until the positive train control system is up and running are adding more inspectors, boosting random field tests, and reinforcing company rules.

Intersections where roads cross railroad tracks are a frequent site of Metrolink commuter train accidents. This is especially true where the intersection is unprotected, or has only a warning light and bells, but no crossing arm. When the crossing arm extends only to the middle of the street, motorists are often tempted to go around the arm and beat the train. For maximum security, crossing arms should be placed on both sides of the road to prevent this foreseeable practice. New technology at rail crossings could include state-of-the-art gating systems, advanced software that would allow trains to detect activity on the tracks ahead of them, and integration between trains and traffic signals at intersections they cross. In 2006, a Metrolink train slammed into a car drive by a 76-year-old woman, killing her instantly near the intersection of Buena Vista Street and San Fernando Road in Glendale. Metrolink officials said the woman was trying to beat the train, but her son contended that his mother was confused by the combination of traffic signals and railroad crossing lights in the area.

Because Metrolink offers to the general public to carry goods or persons for a fee, it is considered by law to be a “common carrier.” As a common carrier, Metrolink is required to use the “utmost due care and diligence” for the safe passage of and to prevent injuries to its passengers and can be held financially responsible (“liable”) for injuries resulting from even its slightest carelessness (“negligence”). Metrolink is bound to do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight that they can reasonable due under the circumstances. However, as to other vehicles and pedestrians not on a Metrolink train, or in the process of getting on or off, Metrolink owes them only the ordinary standard of safety (“due care”).

If a person is in the process of getting on or off a Metrolink car, he or she is considered a passenger even though the person may not be physically on the car. Metrolink’s duty to use the utmost care extends to the period during which a person is getting onto or off of the train. From that point on, Metrolink, as a common carrier, is required to use the utmost care and diligence for the safety of the passenger. Thus, if the Metrolink train pulls away from the station while a person is trying to get on, resulting in the person’s losing balance and falling or being dragged a ways and suffering injuries, Metrolink is liable, even though the person was not completely inside the train car and had not yet paid the fare at the time of the injury or death.

A person is considered a passenger until he or she has safely gotten off the Metrolink train in a relatively safe place. Metrolink’s responsibility to its passengers continues until the passengers have had sufficient time to get away from the train without injury. The Metrolink is legally responsible for any and all injuries a passenger suffers if the train starts pulling away from the station while the passenger is still in the process of getting off the bus, and is injured when he or she falls when the train starts moving again. Metrolink also has the obligation to keep its train platforms in a reasonably safe condition.

According to a September 20, 2008 article in the Los Angeles Times, the Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA), which includes the administration of Metrolink, receives billions of dollars to run light rail lines, subways, and buses across Los Angeles County, but Metrolink “operates on a relative shoestring.” Although the MTA has more than 9,750 full- and part-time employees and a budget of nearly $3.5 billion, Metrolink has a budget of only approximately $160 million, and employs only about 200 employees. It subcontracts with over 450 hundreds of others for items ranging from uniforms and internal audits as well as its train engineers and conductors and maintenance staffs. Its main subcontractors are Veolia Transportation and its subsidiary Connex Railroad. (Where an injury is due to the negligence of an employee of a subcontractor, then that employee’s employer—i.e., the subcontractor—can be sued in addition to Metrolink.) Metrolink has been criticized as being an underfunded agency run by small-town political leaders who have little or no expertise in rail or rail safety.

If you have been injured or a loved one killed in an accident involving Metrolink, you should contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible. Because Metrolink is a joint venture between five counties overseen by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, it is generally necessary to file a claim for damages with the proper governmental agency within six months of the date of the incident. An experienced personal injury attorney will know how and where to file this claim on your behalf.

It is also important to contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible after the accident, as the law firm may want to send its own investigator to the scene of the accident to inspect and take pictures of the accident site and any dangerous condition that caused or contributed to the accident, especially before Metrolink changes the condition. The attorney or his or her investigator will also want to talk to any witnesses to the accident while the facts are still fresh in their minds.

An experienced personal injury law firm can also help with seeing to it that you obtain appropriate and thorough medical care for your physical, emotional, and psychological injuries suffered as a result of the accident. They can also do everything possible to ensure that you obtain full compensation for your medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, property damage, lost wages, and all of your other injuries and damages.   Don’t delay any further, call now and speak wtih a lawyer for free 415.738.7672

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The three injured people were all traveling in the car and it is not clear whether anyone on the Muni bus was injured.  An investigation into the causes of this Muni bus crash is underway.  The driver of the Muni bus has been placed on “non-driving duty” until the results of the investigation are completed.

If you or someone you know has been involved in a Muni bus or Muni train accident, it is important that you speak to an attorney immediately about your case.  Call now and talk to a lawyer for FREE 415.738.7672

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

This Muni accident took place near Second and King at around 9 p.m.  Brand was leaving an event and on his way home.  An investigation into this accident continues.  Our thoughts and prayers are with the Brand family.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Muni accidents happen for a variety of reasons. For instance, perhaps a Muni vehicle is following another vehicle too closely and crashes into the other vehicle when it suddenly stops. Of course, as far as passengers are concerned, it is not necessary for the Muni vehicle they are riding to actually crash into the other vehicle. If the Muni vehicle was able to avoid crashing into the vehicle ahead of it, the Muni may still be legally responsible (“liable”) for injuries to its passenger who may fall or otherwise be injured due to the sudden stop.

Some other common causes of Muni accidents are sudden acceleration, colliding with another vehicle when merging with traffic after making a stop, turning too suddenly or too quickly, improper maintenance of the vehicle (such as worn-out brakes that don’t stop the Muni vehicle in time to avoid an accident), carelessness or recklessness of the driver or operator, inattention of the driver, wire derailment, or equipment failure. The Muni can be held responsible to its passengers and third parties when the accident is due to carelessness (“negligence”) on its part. The Muni has an obligation both to its passengers and non-passengers alike to hire qualified drivers, operators, and other employees and see to it that only qualified persons are hired and that they are properly trained to do their job.

The degree of safety (the “standard of care”) owed by the Muni to its passengers is different than the degree of safety it owes to third parties (such as other vehicles and pedestrians). As to its passengers, a Muni vehicle is considered by the law to be a “common carrier,” because it offers its services to the general public and is bound to accept passengers who “tender the price of carriage.”

Common carriers such as the Muni are responsible for their passengers’ injuries or death resulting from even the slightest degree of carelessness (“negligence”) and are required to do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight that they can reasonably do under the circumstances to protect its passengers from being hurt or killed. This is a higher degree of safety and care than that which is owed to non-passengers. As to pedestrians, other vehicles, motorcyclists, bicyclists, and others not on the Muni vehicle, the Muni operator owes them only the ordinary standard of care to operate the vehicle safely and not subject others to an unreasonable risk of harm.

A person who is in the process of getting on or off a Muni vehicle is considered a passenger and therefore owed the highest degree of safety even though the person may not be physically on the Muni. A person becomes a passenger when he or she demonstrates an intent to board the Muni and the Muni stops to receive him or her. From that point on, the Muni, as a common carrier, is required to use the utmost care and diligence for the safety of the passenger.

Suppose a Muni bus pulls away from the curb while a person is trying to get on, resulting in the person’s falling into the street and being run over by the back wheels of the bus. The Muni can be held legally responsible (“liable”) for the injuries to or death of the person—who is legally considered to be a passenger—for failing to use the highest duty of care for the safety of the passenger trying to board the bus, even though he or she was not completely inside the bus and had not paid the fare at the time of the injury or death.

A person is considered a passenger until he or she has safely gotten off the Muni vehicle in a relatively safe place. The Muni operator’s responsibility to the passenger continues until the passenger has had sufficient time to get away from the vehicle without injury. The Muni is legally responsible for any and all injuries a passenger suffers if, for instance, a Muni bus starts pulling away at a stop while the passenger is still in the process of getting off the bus, and is injured when he or she falls when the bus starts moving again. The Muni is not necessarily required to let the passengers off at the curb, but the Muni driver must let the passengers off in a safe place where there is no danger of their being hit by passing vehicles or being injured by a dangerous condition of the street.

The Muni must provide safe and convenient means of access to and departure from its buses, and is liable for injuries resulting from even the slightest negligence in failing to inspect and keep the means of access and departure safe and clean.

Being a common carrier, the Muni has a duty to use the utmost care and diligence to protect its passengers from assaults by other passengers. The Muni can be held legally responsible for injuries resulting from an assault by another passenger when the Muni operator knew or should have known that an assault on a passenger may be about to occur, and had the ability to prevent the injury. This does not require that the Muni provide an armed security guard on every Muni vehicle. Rather, there are a number of precautionary measures the Muni operator could take which would impose little, if any, burden on the Muni operator. Some of the actions that could be taken include the Muni operator’s warnings to unruly passengers to quiet down or get off the vehicle, the Muni operator’s calling the police and asking for their assistance, or ejecting the unruly passengers.

A special relationship exists between the Muni and its passengers that imposes a heightened duty on the Muni and its operators to safeguard its passengers. As the California Supreme Court has stated in relation to buses: “Bus passengers are sealed in a moving steel cocoon. Large numbers of strangers are forced into very close physical contact with one another under conditions that are crowded, noisy, and overheated. At the same time, the means of entering and exiting the bus are limited and under the exclusive control of the bus driver. Thus, passengers have no control over who is admitted on the bus and, if trouble arises, are wholly dependent upon the bus driver to summon help or provide a means of escape. These characteristics of buses are, at the very least, conducive to outbreaks of violence between passengers and at the same time significantly limit the means by which passengers can protect themselves from assaults by fellow passengers. We believe these characteristics of public transportation, along with the duty of utmost care and diligence imposed by California law, provide a more than ample basis for finding that a special relationship exists between buses and their passengers.”

As a common carrier, the Muni has a duty to its passengers to investigate an accident caused by a third party for the purpose of facilitating a claim by the passenger against the third party wrongdoer. For instance, when a Muni rider is injured when a vehicle rear-ends the Muni vehicle, the operator or other Muni bus employee must obtain information regarding the identity of the negligent driver and the motor vehicle he or she was driving. The failure of the Muni employee to obtain such information, resulting in the injured passenger’s inability to pursue a claim against the negligent driver, can make the Muni directly liable to the injured person, even though the accident was not its fault.
If you have been injured while a passenger on or getting on or off a Muni vehicle, or were struck by a Muni vehicle, sometimes the injuries will be obvious, such as a broken arm, head injury, loss of a limb, or a death. However, it is not at all unusual for serious injuries to take a few days to a few weeks to show up. This applies to both physical and mental (or emotional) injuries.

If you have been injured or a loved one killed in an accident involving a Muni vehicle, you should contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible. Because the Muni is owned by the City and County of San Francisco, it is generally necessary to file a claim for damages with the proper governmental agency within six months of the date of the incident. An experienced personal injury attorney will know how and where to file this claim on your behalf to preserve your legal rights.

It is also important to contact an experienced personal injury as soon as possible after the accident, as the attorney may want to send his or her investigator to the scene of the accident to inspect and take pictures of the accident site and any dangerous condition that caused of contributed to the accident. The attorney or his or her investigator will also want to talk to any witnesses to the accident while the facts are still fresh in their minds.

An experienced personal injury attorney can also help with seeing to it that you receive a thorough physical and mental examination and treatment for any injuries you suffered as a result of the accident. An experienced personal injury law firm can work to obtain full compensation for your medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, property damage, lost wages, and all of your other injuries and damages you are legally entitled to.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites