Passengers Sue Amtrak over Philadelphia Derailment

There will be 8 multimillion wrongful death lawsuits, and well over 200 injury lawsuits, due to this crash ... did you expect anything else ?
 
Last edited:
The scum ambulance chaser lawyers were standing trackside waiting for people to be carted off to the hospital. The sniff around accidents like flies on .....

John
 
Hi John and everybody.
The scum ambulance chaser lawyers were standing trackside waiting for people to be carted off to the hospital. The sniff around accidents like flies on .....
John

John, please do not be too hard on the accident lawyers as like any business it only supplies a service that is requested by the public. However, I do believe that the financial ramifications of this accident will hang over Amtrak for many years into the future.

I do not know if it is the same in the United States but the courts in United Kingdom have very much “moved the goalposts” in recent years with regard to injury compensation claims.

Sadly, it is easier for the courts to decide compensation following a death in an accident than it is to decide recompense when someone is injured. In the case of a death you have a definite date you can work from that being obviously the date of the accident or death following the accident. The courts then only have to work out the loss of annual income to the next of kin and multiply that to what could have been the deceased expected retirement date and you can come up with a figure. Add to the foregoing, payment for distress caused etc and you have a full and final settlement figure. The company liable can then make that payment and move on.

In any case of injury, recent landmark court cases have made the financial outcome much more complex. If you take by way of example someone who has incurred a fracture to a limb in the vicinity of a joint or in the actual joint, in past years compensation was awarded on the basis of loss of earnings, pain and distress, medical expenditure etc between the date of the accident and the person’s full recovery with return to work. The foregoing made up the full and final recompense total for the case.

However, medical evidence now demonstrates that in the case of limb/joint fractures a victim can often make a full recovery in the short-term but then subsequently develop early stage life arthritis in that same joint(s) in following years. Therefore, civil courts now very often make what is known as “interim financial settlements” to accident victims with the case being left open for the plaintiff to return to court for further settlement should there develop long-term medical problems attributable to the accident.

To companies who hold liability in such judgements it means that the total financial implications can be ongoing and unresolved for many years into the future. The forgoing can have huge implications for their insurance costs, or if they insure themselves the amount needed to be funded can never be calculated with any degree of confidence.

In a recent case my company dealt with we advised an employer holding liability for a vehicle trailer accident with an employee to offer out of court double the probable interim settlement payment as a full and final payment which the employee accepted. The employer and ourselves felt that we came out light on that one, but I dread to think what Amtrak may find themselves up against if similar case precedent is ongoing in United States and it is deemed that they hold liability.

Bill
 
Last edited:
I stand by my words. I saw a documentary on these "scum' lawyers.

A group of insurance fraud investigators setup a sting a number of years ago involving a staged bus accident. These critters were swarming around before the victims could be pulled from the wreckage. In the end a number of "agents" were caught along with a bunch of scum doctors and some non-accident victims who weren't even there, or were there watching the events.

We have limitations set by the courts on how much can be paid out, and for good reasons too and not just because this is Amtrak.
 
I rather feel the lawsuits are jumping the gun..... The operator doesn't remember anything, which ok, most think is a cop out on his part, but then they released that the front window of the cab had a circular break pattern in it....... If it turns out someone dropped a rock (doubt it will be this, but something similar to this perhaps) and it knocked the operator unconscious, then there's going to be alot of unhappy lawyers standing around.... People sue companies because companies have money.... Petty Vandals do 10-25 years for this kind of thing assuming they're not under age and are let go.... Can't squeeze blood from a rock....

I'd say, why don't we wait to see what they determine the cause of this to be before we go jumping the gun on assumptions on who's liable for what or for how much?

-Falcus
 
I rather feel the lawsuits are jumping the gun..... The operator doesn't remember anything, which ok, most think is a cop out on his part, but then they released that the front window of the cab had a circular break pattern in it....... If it turns out someone dropped a rock (doubt it will be this, but something similar to this perhaps) and it knocked the operator unconscious, then there's going to be alot of unhappy lawyers standing around.... People sue companies because companies have money.... Petty Vandals do 10-25 years for this kind of thing assuming they're not under age and are let go.... Can't squeeze blood from a rock....

I'd say, why don't we wait to see what they determine the cause of this to be before we go jumping the gun on assumptions on who's liable for what or for how much?

-Falcus

Agree...

There's a lot more going on here in the accident that hasn't been told. I have a theory which I'll PM you. We should wait and see what the NTSB shows what the cause is, and then let the courts do their thing should this be a driver liability.

These ambulance chasers were probably swarming around the tracks before there was even an accident like flies and hornets watching a picnic basket being brought by a family that just got to the beach.

John
 
Even a "Train Hugger" if thrown around inside a tumbling traincar (that was speeding at well over 2 times the speed limit of a tight curve), and if you sustained a dislocated shoulder, broken bones, or permanent back injuries ... You would also sue your once "Precious Amtrak" too !
 
Even a "Train Hugger" if thrown around inside a tumbling traincar (that was speeding at well over 2 times the speed limit of a tight curve), and if you sustained a dislocated shoulder, broken bones, or permanent back injuries ... You would also sue your once "Precious Amtrak" too !

Sure, but that's why we have insurance coverage. You don't need to call Lawyers are US at 1-800-SCREW. We get those adverts all the time now on TV for things we've never heard of, which might make you die or something. They go on too about "If you or a loved one died due to the cause, of...______ you might be entitled to a big settlement...".

John
 
Amtrak deserves to be sued for running trains without allerters, PTC, and AWS ... sued so badly that they are completely shut down, and US Troops run the RR instead ... as they are not making any money, and never have made any money.

Medical insurance only covers some of your hospitalization, and the hospital kicks you to the curb as soon as you can poo by yourself ... Then Disability is denied 10 times over, and workmens comp turns you down ... and your sitting in a wheelchair for the rest of your life, with irreparable back, or head, injuries ... You better believe it ... I ever get hurt on a transit system due to negligence, I'm going to find the biggest Hebrew (as the majority of attorneys are Jewish) ambulance chaser attorney I can find !
 
Hi everybody.
I rather feel the lawsuits are jumping the gun..... The operator doesn't remember anything, which ok, most think is a cop out on his part, but then they released that the front window of the cab had a circular break pattern in it....... If it turns out someone dropped a rock (doubt it will be this, but something similar to this perhaps) and it knocked the operator unconscious, then there's going to be alot of unhappy lawyers standing around.... People sue companies because companies have money.... Petty Vandals do 10-25 years for this kind of thing assuming they're not under age and are let go.... Can't squeeze blood from a rock....

I'd say, why don't we wait to see what they determine the cause of this to be before we go jumping the gun on assumptions on who's liable for what or for how much?

-Falcus

Ah falcus if only things were that simple. First of all let me state the following is how British legislation operates in the above circumstances, but I believe similar systems operate in most advanced Western countries.

In the UK if you sufferer personal attack and the person who carried out the attack is unable to pay recompense then a body known as the “criminal compensation authority” which is a government agency will pay the compensation at the behest of a civil court.

However, should it transpire from investigation that the train came under attack by way of an object being thrown, then that would be legally viewed as an assault on the train in general and not on any particular person travelling on it.

In the foregoing, Amtrak will at least initially be legally liable under “Duty of Care Regulations” as it was on their vehicle that the injuries to the passengers occurred. Therefore, preliminary notification of a forthcoming legal action by the lawyers representing the injured and next of kin of the deceased would have to be lodged at Amtrak’s registered office as no other course of action would legally be open to them.

(The foregoing is the simple bit, below is where is it gets complicated.)

Amtrak lawyers will without doubt argue (if it is proven that an object was thrown at the vehicle) that the train operating company were in no way responsible for the derailment and its consequences to the passengers. The lawyers will then equally without doubt try to offset all claims and payments to the criminal compensation authority. As stated the criminal compensation authority are a government agency and do not part with their money easily, and in their normal pattern counter claim under what is known as “percentage liability”.

Lawyers for the above body will argue that they accept an object was thrown at the train but ask the court to consider what percentage part that action played in the overall incident that followed. Many of the questions that have already been raised in the media and are currently being investigated will be put to the court. Why was it that if the engineer was completely incapacitated by an object entering the cab that the on-board alerter system failed to safely bring the train to halt? Why was it that the train entered rapid acceleration until a few seconds before the accident when the emergency brakes were applied? Why was it that a trackside train protection system had not been installed even though Amtrak had been legally obliged to do so?

The foregoing questions and perhaps many others will be placed before the civil courts and perhaps by that time the accident investigators will be in a position to provide the answers.

Following all the above the courts will then rule on liability probably on a percentage basis. In that they will decide and rule that the object thrown at the train played a 10% 25%, 50% or whatever in causing the incident, and all liability claim payments will be funded between the train operating company (in this case Amtrak) and the criminal compensation authority on the basis of that ruling.

My company are quite often called in as an independent body by the courts, employers, insurance companies and on occasion by the health and safety executive to investigate and advise industrial percentage liability cases. Sorting out these legal wrangles makes up about 30-40% of our workload. The foregoing has kept me in employment for the last 30 years, so long may the above continue.

As stated the forgoing is how the British and a large part of the European Union legislation works so perhaps someone can advise if US legislation is similar

Bill
 
Last edited:
Hi everybody.
.....First of all let me state the following is how British legislation operates in the above circumstances, but I believe similar systems operate in most advanced Western countries.

.....In the UK ....

.....In the foregoing, Amtrak will at least initially be legally liable under “Duty of Care Regulations”....

.....As stated the forgoing is how the British and a large part of the European Union legislation works so perhaps someone can advise if US legislation is similar......

Bill

To answer your last inquiry.....

Nope.....

You're comparing apples and oranges..... I appreciate your lengthy Hypothetical if Amtrak was British as a fun Academic Exercise, and there are similarities to how it'll probably occur here in the U.S., but not many....

The US is the Lawsuit Happy Capitol of the world for a reason......

Things are that simple here, if that turns out to be the case..... "Duty of Care Regulations"? No such thing here. Anymore then Smith and Wesson is liable for Gun Crime..... That reason, and many others similar, is why here in the US you Sue first and ask questions later, and hope you get whatever you can from whoever you can..... If it turns out the Driver was at fault, Amtrak will be making some big pay-outs. If it was an outside force of some kind, probably very little money outside of charity will exchange hands, hence I say, Wait for the freakin Ink on the Investigative report, which hasn't even been filed or probably even written yet, to dry......

-Falcus
 
Hi Everybody.
Snip~ "Duty of Care Regulations"? No such thing here.~snip

Snip~If it was an outside force of some kind, probably very little money outside of charity will exchange hands, hence I say, Wait for the freakin Ink on the Investigative report, which hasn't even been filed or probably even written yet, to dry~snip

-Falcus

Falcus, can I respectfully suggest that you are misinformed regarding the non-existence of “Duty of Care” regulations in the United States. The foregoing legislation is encompassed under the United States “Tort Laws” which are at the very heart of the United States Constitution and the written constitutions of other western developed countries. Tort Law sets the basis of civil regulations as distinct from criminal regulations and brings about the difference between the criminal and civil courts.

To cut out all the legal jargon of Tort Law, it very much sets out as its primary objective, that at all times, all people in the United States have a legal duty to act reasonably so as to avoid injuring other people. When people or organizations fail to meet this legal duty, they may be liable for any resulting injuries to others.

As an example, what is known worldwide as common carriers (Meaning bus drivers, train drivers, and airplane pilots and their employing organizations) owe a particularly high duty of care to passengers under Tort Legislation (Duty of Care). Therefore, a Train operating company (recognized as a common carrier organization) can be liable for a passenger's injuries when a company employee acts in a negligent manner causing injury.

So, YES, Duty of Care very much exists under United States Law.

Falcus, you are correct in stating that no federal body such as the United Kingdom’s Criminal Compensation Authority exists in the United States. However, virtually all states have their own individual bodies which act in a similar manner to those in Britain and the European Union which I described in my posting at #12 of this thread.

In the state of Pennsylvania where this tragic accident occurred, the commission on crime and delinquency advises on its website that it is in existence to assist and reimburse people who suffer injury and loss due to criminal action. The state run organisation advises that they pay an average of $13 million per year to those referred to its services. The organisation also advises on how it attempts to reclaim the state funded payments from the perpetrators of the crimes when they are brought to justice.

Therefore, this hardly sounds like charity, to me but much more in line with the British criminal compensation authorities actions, which I do not believe anyone feels is charity but much more in the thinking of “that is what we pay our taxes for”.

What I do not understand in this thread is the almost “venomous” attitude by some posters towards those passengers on the train who suffered injury and loss and now only wish to claim compensation for that loss. Many of those passengers are now facing pain through injury, months off work, loss of income, and in the case of manual workers perhaps never returning to their jobs.

You also have the next of kin to those that died in this incident who face not only loss of their loved ones but the permanent loss of the income they brought into their homes. Therefore, quick action by the lawyers representing them is essential against those holding primary liability even if that means not waiting for the “frigin ink on the investigations to dry”. Quick action can help alleviate some of the financial stress even when the mental and physical scars will take much longer to alleviate, if at all.

Bill
 
First of all, a Lawsuit in the United states is a CIVIL Court Matter, and carries NO criminal repercussions. They are decided by a single judge, no jail time can be awarded (Thrown at?) Either party regardless of the outcome. Its entirely about "Financial Recompense".

You sir need to start posting links to what you're talking about.... By all means, hit me with Legal Jargon. As long as its American Legal Jargon, since the topic at hand is the American Legal System. If you can prove me wrong on my points, by all means, feel free. Until then, I question how much of your "Comparison to the UK" Point of view accurately represents whats likely to occur.....

The foregoing legislation is encompassed under the United States “Tort Laws” which are at the very heart of the United States Constitution and the written constitutions of other western developed countries. Tort Law sets the basis of civil regulations as distinct from criminal regulations and brings about the difference between the criminal and civil courts.

First of all, I never said there were no Tort Laws. Just no Duty of Care, and on a Federal Level, I was right.... I must admit, I'm not familiar with ALL 50 States individual Sets of Law, and I would wager neither are you, or you'd be quoting it at me I'm sure.....

So, on this point, I've done the Leg work for you:

Duty Of Care written in our constitution? By all means, I'd love to see a link to that....

Tort Law.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_tort_law#Duty_of_reasonable_care

Negligence

Main article: Negligence in the United States
Amongst unintentional torts one finds negligence as being the most common source of common law. Most Americans are under the impression that most people can sue for any type of negligence, but it is untrue in most US jurisdictions (partly because negligence is one of the few torts for which ordinary people can and do obtain liability insurance.)[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] It is a form of extracontractual liability that is based upon a failure to comply with the duty of care of a reasonable person, which failure is the actual cause and proximate cause of damages. That is, but for the tortfeasor's act or omission, the damages to the plaintiff would not have been incurred, and the damages were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the tortious conduct.

Some jurisdictions recognize one or more designations less than actual intentional wrongdoing, but more egregious than mere negligence, such as "wanton", “reckless” or “despicable" conduct. A finding in those states that a defendant's conduct was "wanton," “reckless” or “despicable”, rather than merely negligent, can be significant because certain defenses, such as contributory negligence, are often unavailable when such conduct is the cause of the damages.

By State, so, no Federally Mandated "Laws".
Do the Amtrak Employees have a case at all? Yes, if Amtrak or its chosen representatives is found to be negligent. I never said otherwise, so if you're going to quote me, please quote


Duty of Care in the United States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care#United_States
United States

Because each of the 50 U.S. states is a separate sovereign free to develop its own tort law under the Tenth Amendment, there are several tests for finding a duty of care in United States tort law.
IE:

A: We have no Federally Mandated Duty of Care.... Anywhere.... Feel free to read the Tenth Amendment, no mention of such.... (By the by, there are certain factions in the U.S. that would even argue that the Bill of Rights, IE all "Amendments" made after the original document, are separate from the actual Constitution. Not that I am one of those, though you might like to know since you seem to think you know more about our constitution)

B:Its left to the States. Apparently Florida and Massachusetts do, and there may be more, however I can find no mention anywhere of a "Duty of Care" law for Pennsylvania..... If you DO find something, feel free to post it and we can review it.....

IF Amtrak and its employees are absolved of Liability as the result of actions by another party however, things change dramatically, which was the whole point of my First post.....

Oh, and I HAD to ask about this:
Pennsylvania Crime Commission? You mean this?:
http://www.pccd.pa.gov/Pages/Default.aspx#.VV4xZUZqK4k
Thats for CRIMINAL proceedings only and I dare say they will have absolutely no input on whatever Case may or may not be brought against Amtrak or its Engineer in the event criminal proceedings are sought. Regardless, Amtrak, nor any representative there of, will never "do time" as a result of a *lawsuit*..... You're not a criminal until criminal charges are brought against you by an Authority empowered to do so (IE the Government), and found guilty of said charge. Civil Lawsuits following would use any findings of such a criminal case, but the lawsuit would be separate and after the fact.

Unfortunately, the difference between Civil and Criminal Courts is not something thats been readily tackled or defined by better sources then this:
http://www.civilrights.org/judiciary/courts/difference-civil-criminal-courts.html
However, having been sued in my life (And won), I would agree with their definition. Its not Wikipedia, and I would wager that a more thorough, legalese Definition exists, but I don't have time to pursue it atm..... (Again back to the crux of my first post): If Amtrak is found Criminally Innocent of Negligence, they're not Civilly Liable for anything, though they might still CHARITABLY give some cash out (It makes good PR), assuming they don't have insurance to cover whatever medical issues arise for the survivors or cost exceeds what their policy's cover..... Assuming their insurance covers things like situations they're not at fault for, I would have to assume so with the number of people they carry every year.....

So we get back to the Crux of my SECOND post.... Wait for the Freakin Investigation to be concluded and the Report to be filed before deciding what does or does not apply, because we Don't know what happened..... Nobody short of God (And I have yet to see him show up in a Court Room) can finger Liable Parties without first finding out what happened....

Cheers
-Falcus
 
Last edited:
And I would like to add...

I have nothing against people seeking compensation if compensation is earned. I don't like the ambulance chasing lawyers that lie in wait for accidents and advertise on television and radio on "How to get your money..."

There are cases that are justified for compensation, such as one against Duke Energy for dumping coal sludge into a river. The EPA and residents sought compensation for their outright negligent actions. Or to go back a couple, few decades... The case against Love Canal or Grace Chemical in Woburn, MA where a portion of the town was poisoned outright by chemicals dumped in the ground as the companies profits rose. Even to this day, these areas are poisoned. In the not too distant past, there was still that smell of sulfur and local children used to skip stone on ponds to watch them catch on fire.

However at this point, as has been stated, people need to wait to see where things go. If it is truly a case of negligence so be it and let the money fly, but to dive in now and carve up the turkey while it's still kicking is outright absurd.

John
 
Hi everybody.
First of all, a Lawsuit in the United states is a CIVIL Court Matter, and carries NO criminal repercussions. They are decided by a single judge, no jail time can be awarded (Thrown at?) Either party regardless of the outcome. Its entirely about "Financial Recompense".

Falcus, with the greatest of respect, I believe you must have misread the first paragraph of my posting at #16 of this thread where I stated “Tort Law sets the basis of civil regulations as distinct from criminal regulations and brings about the difference between the criminal and civil courts.” Therefore the statement you make had already been made by myself?


I never said there were no Tort Laws. Just no Duty of Care

Falcus, again with the greatest of respect I feel you did not read the first paragraph of my above posting in which I stated “Duty of Care” regulations in the United States. The foregoing legislation is encompassed under the United States “Tort Laws”. Encompass is defined within the Oxford English dictionary is to “hold within or surround”. Therefore duty of care is encompassed within the tort law.

Indeed, you make the above point within your own posting where you reference a Wikipedia section on tort law and in the subsection entitled “negligence” it states “It is a form of extracontractual liability that is based upon a failure to comply with the duty of care of a reasonable person, which failure is the actual cause and proximate cause of damages.

Therefore Falcus within your own posting you appear to deny the existence of duty of care legislation within the United States, and then prove its existence by your Wikipedia extracted section.

Oh, and I HAD to ask about this:Pennsylvania Crime Commission? You mean this?: http://www.pccd.pa.gov/Pages/Default.aspx#.VV4xZUZqK4k
Thats for CRIMINAL proceedings

Again with respect Falcus, you appeared to have not fully read paragraph seven of my posting at #16 of my above thread, where I stated “In the state of Pennsylvania where this tragic accident occurred, the commission on crime and delinquency.... Therefore a straightforward Google search under “Pennsylvania Crime and Delinquency Commission would have sufficed, or if you wish to have the exact section within the website

http://www.pccd.pa.gov/Victim-Servi...n-Assistance-Program-(VCAP).aspx#.VV8hMvlVhBc

The above will take you straight to the relevant pages of the “PA.GOV”website

I will not go any further in responding to your posting at #17 of this thread as we must be boring other forum members to tears with this legalistic argument. However Falcus, I did notice that you addressed me as “SIR” in one section of your above posting. In the United Kingdom only her Majesty the Queen can bestow the title of “Sir” on any person. As I find I am yet to be called to the Palace to be dubbed with that honour, you need not (as yet) refer to me in title with the above prefix. However, when an offer is extended from the Palace to be bestowed as such, I shall gracefully accept.

After all, Sir Bill or Sir William does not sound bad, in fact I feel it has a certain ring about it.:D

Bill
 
Last edited:
Hi Everybody
And I would like to add...

I have nothing against people seeking compensation if compensation is earned. I don't like the ambulance chasing lawyers that lie in wait for accidents and advertise on television and radio on "How to get your money..."

There are cases that are justified for compensation, such as one against Duke Energy for dumping coal sludge into a river. The EPA and residents sought compensation for their outright negligent actions. Or to go back a couple, few decades... The case against Love Canal or Grace Chemical in Woburn, MA where a portion of the town was poisoned outright by chemicals dumped in the ground as the companies profits rose. Even to this day, these areas are poisoned. In the not too distant past, there was still that smell of sulfur and local children used to skip stone on ponds to watch them catch on fire.

However at this point, as has been stated, people need to wait to see where things go. If it is truly a case of negligence so be it and let the money fly, but to dive in now and carve up the turkey while it's still kicking is outright absurd.

John

Hi everybody.
John, I appreciate your concern with regard to “ambulance chasing lawyers” but law firms compete with one another in the same fashion as any other business in our capitalist societies. As food firms offer their cornflakes as best, car manufacturers offer their various models as best, so lawyers or solicitors (as they are known in the UK) offer their various services as best through advertising. The foregoing may be distasteful in some cases but as stated, it’s what makes our capitalist world go round.

As I believe you know John, a section of my job often involves interviewing persons who have been injured in industrial accidents. I therefore see in those interviews so often the pain of injury aggravated by financial stress brought on by not receiving a monthly/weekly pay cheque due to being incapacitated.

Therefore it is important for the lawyers representing them to immediately on taking up the case, register a “notice of prospective claim action” with who ever they see as the preliminary or primary holder of liability following an incident. In carrying out the foregoing the lawyers sets in motion legal time limitations on how long liability holders have to respond to letters and requests for information etc which is a benefit to claimants who may be having financial problems (at least that is how the system operates in the UK)

In the case of the Philadelphia rail incident, the accident victims were travelling on a Amtrak train, running on an Amtrak rail line and driven by an Amtrak employee. The foregoing would make Amtrak the preliminary and primary liability holders at this point in time and where all prospective claim actions will be lodged. Should it be that the investigation demonstrates for whatever reason that Amtrak are not liable, the company will then be in a position to offset those claims to whoever the investigation demonstrates is the main body responsible or others who may who hold victim obligations following the accident.

In the above, the main thing from the claimant’s lawyers perspective at this point in time is always to “get the legal wheels turning” on behalf of those who have been incurred injury in the accident.

To use your cliche John, from the perspective of the passengers that were injured on this train and the next of kin of those who died, their turkey is not kicking it is already dead and there is an urgent need to alleviate their plight as best that can be done.

The passengers on that train did not commit any crime in buying a valid ticket to travel, they only wished to get to their destinations safely late on that evening. While they were engaged in that, someone may have acted criminally, or an employee was grossly negligent in the course of their work duties, or it was a combination of both the forgoing scenarios. Either way, the passengers and victims had no part in what caused the incident and therefore need and are entitled to assistance and recompense as quickly as that can be carried out.

Bill
 
Last edited:
Back
Top