Advertisement

Suit against Metrolink advances

Defense attorneys had argued that a class-action lawsuit would set a bad precedent.

May 12, 2009|By Veronica Rocha

LOS ANGELES — A class-action lawsuit against Metrolink over the 2005 derailment that killed 11 passengers continued to move ahead Monday after a Superior Court judge dismissed a defense motion that argued the trial would set a dangerous precedent.

Attorney James Wakefield, who is representing Metrolink in the civil proceedings, told Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias that the crossing near the scene of the crash was similar to other right-of-way situations throughout the nation, and so allowing a class-action lawsuit to proceed would be the equivalent of calling hundreds of railroad crossings overtly dangerous.

“What we have is a garden-variety crossing,” he said.

Eleven passengers were killed and nearly 200 others injured when Juan Manuel Alvarez parked his Jeep Cherokee on the Metrolink tracks near Chevy Chase Drive, close to the Glendale-Los Angeles border, on Jan. 26, 2005.

Advertisement

Alvarez was sentenced last year in criminal court to serve 11 consecutive life sentences in prison after he was convicted in June for causing the deadly train derailment.

Survivors of the crash and family members of the deceased filed a wrongful-death and personal-injury lawsuit against Metrolink after the crash.

Elias, in denying Metrolink’s motion Monday, said the rail agency’s attorneys failed to address the cause of the train derailment in their arguments.

“I don’t know how to derail a train,” she said. “I don’t know what it takes to derail a train.”

Attorney Jerome Ringler, who represents the victims, said Metrolink officials had to know that when Alvarez parked his car on the train tracks, a crash would occur. Metrolink had 200 car-train accidents over about a decade, he said.

The ruling Monday was the latest in a string of developments leading up to what is expected to be an arduous civil trial. It was originally scheduled for this summer, but attorneys continue to wrangle over pretrial motions.

Earlier this year, a state appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs couldn’t argue that Metrolink’s practice of pushing cars with an engine at the rear was negligent. Attorneys had argued that the pushing mode left the front cars vulnerable to being pried off the tracks when hitting obstacles, and so was inherently unsafe.

In January, Ringler and other defense team members claimed they had irrefutable proof that the train’s engineer could have prevented the crash if prescribed emergency braking procedures had been followed.

Human error is also a main point of contention following the September head-on Metrolink train collision crash in Chatsworth that killed 25 people and injured 135.

At least a half-dozen civil lawsuits have been filed against Metrolink for the crash.


Glendale News-Press Articles
|
|
|