San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

The Most Dangerous Places for Pedestrians in San Francisco

September 16, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Over the past two weeks a few serious pedestrian accidents occurred at different intersections in San Francisco. The first occurred last week in Duboce Triangle. A 59-year-old man, was struck and fatally injured by an SUV as he was crossing the street in that area. He was resident of the mission district, was a regular in the neighborhood where he was fatally injured, and, according to his friends, he was a beloved member of that community. Police stated that the driver of the SUV was not cited and that he stopped after the crash and cooperated with investigators. Also last week, a mother was walking with two children southbound on Third Street at Williams Street at around 3:30pm. She had one child next to her and her five-year-old was following behind her as they crossed the street. As they were crossing private shuttle bus was driving eastbound on Williams Street and stuck the5-year-old boy as it turned right onto Third Street. He was taken to a hospital with life-threatening injuries. The shuttle bus had one passenger who was not injured and the driver of the bus cooperated with the investigation. And this week, a pedestrian suffered suffered injuries after being struck by a car near the Haight-Ashbury district. The accident happened around midnight at the intersection of Page and Divisadero streets. The pedestrian was taken to the hospital with life-threatening injuries.

These accidents should be a reminder that of all the potential hazards to pedestrians, it is intersections that are riskiest of all. The major problem with intersections is that they are unanticipated or sudden requirement, and, in general, they are considered a necessary inconvenience by drivers. As a result drivers are not always patient and cautious when they reach them. What is more, most people feel intersections are an obstacle they feel forced to negotiate. Think about the psychology involved: Every person who arrives at an intersection is heading different directions with different purposes, and all trying to quickly get through on their way to their desired destination. For this reason, collisions regularly happen at intersections. So it is important for everyone who approaches an intersections become hyper vigilant, especially pedestrians. The following is a nice long list of tips for getting through intersections safely:
• Drivers need to remember that the law requires drivers to stop once someone has entered the crosswalk.
• A red light does not guarantee that vehicles will stop.
• drivers and pedestrians make eye contact with each other.
• Drivers should always yield to pedestrians at an intersection.
• When making a left turn, always yield the right-of-way to oncoming traffic.
• Leave enough space between your car and the one in front.
• Leave early, allowing extra travel time in case of delays.
• Remember: yellow lights mean stop unless it’s unsafe to do so.
• Look for-and expect to see-pedestrians, cyclists and motorcycles.
• Don’t make any sudden moves that might confuse another driver-or a cyclist or pedestrian.
• If you haven’t just seen the traffic light up ahead turn green, be ready to stop in case it changes to yellow.
• Always check your mirrors and look around. Slow down well in advance.
• Only go through a yellow light if it is unsafe to stop.
• Check the pedestrian signals-at most crosswalks the signal will change from a white figure to an red hand just before the light turns yellow, or will show how many seconds are left before the traffic light will change.
• Make sure you are always in the correct lane before a turn.
• Don’t change lanes in an intersection.
• Always use your turn signals well before you make a move, as it helps other drivers, cyclists and pedestrians know what you are doing.
• If you’re the first car to stop-make sure you remain behind the crosswalk.
• Ignore aggressive drivers-pay no attention if they’re honking their horns behind you.
Continue Reading ›

How San Francisco Can Make Its Streets Safer For Cyclists

September 2, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

For those of you who do not get around by bicycle, you may not know that the door zone, the space in a bike lane between the cyclist and a parallel parked car, is one of the biggest threats to bicyclists in San Francisco. According to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), dooring is the second most common form of injury collision involving cyclists, behind unsafe speed, though the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition contends that dooring is the highest injury collision type caused by motorists or their passengers. The good new is the San Francisco Municipal Transportation agency is piloting a series of projects designed to encourage bicyclists to steer clear of the door zone. On sections of Polk Street, for example, the SFMTA has painted a batch of T’s in the bike lanes that are supposed to guide bicyclists away from the door zone. The design proves to be an improvement over the standard bike lanes, yet it does, at the same time, underscore the fact that there is not much space available for cyclists to ride safely. Research shows that bicyclists are only given a very narrow area of a space in a bike lane when a car door opens, about one to two feet wide, depending on the width of the lane and size of the car door.

The SFMTA is also trying out this T style cross-hatch design on 17th Street between Dolores and Guerrero streets, and they have installed the T design in the bike lanes on Howard Street between 5th and 7th. The T design is becoming more and more cities across the country and is a feature that is highlighted in the Urban Bikeway Design Guide put out by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). The SFMTA has done before/after studies on both Polk and Howard where they were able to reduce the number of cyclists riding in the door zone. In a 2006 study in Howard Street, the average distance from the curb where cyclists rode increased from 10.3 feet to 10.9 feet, with 24% riding in the door zone before and 10% after. In a 2009-10 study on Polk Street, the average distance from the curb where cyclists rode increased from 10 feet to 10.4 feet, with 41% riding in the door zone before and 30% after.

The SFMTA says the T installations have been effective so far. They are also considering implementing left side bike lanes. Left-side bike lanes are conventional bike lanes placed on the left side of one-way streets or two-way median divided streets. They offer advantages along streets with heavy delivery or transit use, frequent parking turnover on the right side, or other potential conflicts that could be associated with right-side bicycle lanes. The left side bike lane benefits are:
• Avoids potential right-side bike lane conflicts on streets,
• improves bicyclist visibility by motorists by having the bike lanes on the driver’s side,
• provides consistent facility configuration in locations where right-side travel lanes are subject to rush hour parking restrictions and other flexible uses,
• minimizes door zone conflicts next to parking because of fewer door opening on the passenger side of vehicles,
• fewer bus and truck conflicts as most bus stops and loading zones are on the right side of the street.
If Bike lanes are to provide a measure of safety, then they must provide minimum safe distance from cyclists. This world is changing, and as more people become conscious of the environment, interested in sustainable living, and turn to public transportation and bicycling, then society and governments must move along with those changes. Consequently, as this happens, it is imperative that urban planning designs evolve to include safer routes for cyclists.
Continue Reading ›

Strong San Francisco Pedestrian Adovacy Needed: One Pedestrian Death is One Too Many

August 22, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Last Friday a MUNI bus struck and killed a pedestrian, according to sfgate.com. The crash occurred at 18th and Hartford around 2:30pm. It was unusual because there is not a bus route on Hartford Street. The bus was sent there from another place to act as a shuttle and ease commuter congestion on the F-line. The driver is undergoing routine drug and alcohol tests. Acting as a shuttle. The unidentified victim was described as being between 25 and 30 years old.

Our own observations of pedestrian accidents and our understanding of the research regarding the subject, has shown us that most pedestrian accidents occur in urban areas where there is a concentrated amount pedestrian activity. Therefore it makes sense that pedestrian deaths occur most often in urban settings, even if there seems to be a higher ratio of deaths to injuries in rural areas due to higher speeds on rural roads and limited access to trauma centers. Strange as it may sound, the most common crash scenario involves pedestrians crossing in front of a passenger vehicle that is traveling straight, which typically occurs in daylight and roads with speed limits below 40mph. What does make sense is that the majority of pedestrian deaths occur when it is dark or twilight and at locations other than intersections, where vehicle speeds may be higher and drivers do not expect to have to stop.

Usually, pedestrians are struck by the front of a vehicle. The outcome of such a situation depends on a few factors, which include the speed of the vehicle and how tall the pedestrian is. When a pedestrian is struck by a vehicle the initial contact tends to be with the bumper and/or the front edge of the hood, depending on the type of vehicle. When pedestrians are struck by larger, higher vehicles such SUVs or buses, the impact is higher on the body and typically leads serious injuries and higher risk of death. It is very easy for a bus to completely run over a person’s entire body in an instant at slow speed. Common driver errors that contribute to pedestrian accidents include disregarding a crosswalk, meaning drivers not paying attention to crosswalks, or at other points of an intersection or roadway, thereby creating significant risk of an accident.

We agree with pedestrian advocates when they propose extending the signal time available for pedestrians to cross at intersections as a way of reducing pedestrian accidents, especially for older pedestrians. Studies has found that providing pedestrians a 3-second head start through a leading pedestrian interval, a signal that allows pedestrians to begin crossing before the release of turning vehicles, reduces incidents between pedestrians and turning vehicles. Here in our own city we are proud of Walk SF, our pedestrian advocacy group, and hope this current MUNI accident strengthens and furthers their efforts to make San Francisco one of the most walkable cities in the country, as well as spur their goals of activism and influencing of public policy advocacy.
Continue Reading ›

The Cost of Tort Reform–for Both Winners and Losers

August 19, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Back in 1975 Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law limiting pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice cases. Since then other laws have been enacted which have affected tort reform– in 1997 a period known as the “napkin deal” took effect, and lasted 5 years, whereby insurance companies received protection from lawsuits, doctors were able to keep their liability protections and allowed a higher standard of proof that a victim had to meet; in 1988 a ballot war over auto insurance took place; in 2000 a referendum backed by insurers to repeal a “bad faith” law sponsored by lawyers won, and in 2004 a battle took place at the ballot box that curbed unfair business practice suits against small businesses. For many years, personal injury lawyers have been involved in a battle with insurance companies and their business clients over the rules that decide who can sue and collect for injuries. Millions of dollars have been spent on campaign contributions, lobbying fees, public relations tactics and other political manuevering, all of which are nothing compared to the billions insurance companies shuffle out each year.

A case exemplifying this battle is http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S179115.PDF, a case, up until yesterday, was waiting for a state Supreme Court case decision. It was argued in May, and since that time the legal community has been analyzing the comments of the justices hearing the case and debating how the case would play out. The main issue of the case is whether someone who suffers injuries in an auto collision or other incident is entitled to collect the full amount of the medical bills issued by doctors, hospitals and other care providers, or if they are limited to the amount actually paid by insurers for that treatment, which is often a fraction of the supposed bill. The case stems from a 2005 San Diego County collision in which a Hamilton Meat truck seriously injured Rebecca Howell. Howell’s medical bills approached $200,000 but medical insurance settled with the care providers for $60,000 and the trial judge reduced the medical part of her judgment to that amount. The full amount was restored by an appellate court, and whatever happens in Howell’s case will also settle several other cases hinging on the same issue.

Yesterday the state Supreme Court issued their ruling on behalf of the handed insurers and business groups a major legal victory and for personal injury lawyers big setback by imposing limits on medical damages in one of the era’s most closely watched civil cases. The issue in the case, Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, was whether an injured party could collect the full medical care costs billed by doctors and hospitals, or the lesser amount that the medical providers accepted from an insurance company. The majoritie’s decision was stated like this: “We hold no such recovery is allowed, for the simple reason that the injured plaintiff did not suffer any economic loss in that amount.” The majority also held that “unlike the law of other states, California’s damages statutes bar Howell from recovering as damages for medical expenses anything in excess of the amount her medical providers agreed to accept.” Insures said that if they had lost case, it would add as much as $3 million a year to their payouts in auto accidents and other personal injury cases, from which Plaintiffs’ attorneys would have been entitled to about a third.

Fracking Bill Could Lead to New Claims Against Oil and Gas Companies

August 17, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Currently in Califonia there is a debate about the environmental impact of Hydrolic Fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing, also called hydrolic fracking, is a natural gas drilling technique that involves pumping fracking fluid at high pressure into the earth to release gas deposits locked in underground rock formations, has long raised concerns about air and water pollution. Here in California, counties have limited authority over oil and gas operations. It is the state’s Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources serves as the industry’s main regulator. Yet, the division, which is part of the state Department of Conservation, does not have specific regulations for fracking, as it views it merely as one of several techniques for wrestling more oil and natural gas from the earth. It is Important that an investigation go into hydrolic fracking technology in order to find out the degree, if any, of environmental degradation and chemical pollution, and they types of injuries caused by inhalation of air or ingestion of water polluted with carcinogenic fracking fluid chemicals. The debate over this matter has residents living near wells are worried that fracking may contaminate their water.

One particular case comes to mind of well water contamination from fracking, one that occurred over 20 years ago in West Virginia and can be used to debunk the industry’s claims. According to the Environmental Working Group, the U.S. Environmental Protection agency has concluded, in a 1987, study that fracking of natural gas well in West Virginia had contaminated an underground drinking water source. It was determined that the fracking gel used to drill over 4,000 feet down had turned up a drinking water well nearby. In November of 2010, the EPA issued voluntary information request to nine leading national and regional hydraulic fracturing service providers. The data requested will play an important part in their Hydraulic Fracturing Study currently in the works. The study seeks information on the chemical composition of fluids used in the hydrolic fracturing process, data on the impacts of the chemicals on human health and the environment, standard operating procedures at hydraulic fracturing sites and the locations of site where fracturing has been conducted. Another effort currently underway to protect the environment is a regulation bill, written by Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont). The bill would require oil companies to make public the chemicals used in each well, but not the exact proportion, which each company views as a trade secret and keeps their business competitive. We will be keeping our eyes peeled for any developments regarding the EPA’s findings and how oil companies respond to the bill when it takes effect. Negligence on the part oil companes could lead to a significant number of injury claims in California.
Continue Reading ›

Possible New Fines for Distracted Driving in California

August 16, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Distracted driving, such as changing the radio or a CD, talking to passengers, looking outside at things other than the road, using a cell phone, or text messaging is a major cause of accidents because it prevents the driver from focusing on the complete task of driving. Interactive devices and navigational tools can also distract drivers. More and more states and localities are banning specific distractions. Yesterday, according to sfexaminer.com,a new bill aimed distracted driving was sent to Governor Jerry Brown by the Senate. If he signs the bill, fines for drivers who refuse to go hands-free while using their cell phones will increase. The base fine for texting or calling while holding a cell phone would increase from $20 to $50. Court fees would drive the cost from about $180 to $300, says the author, Democratic Sen. Joe Simitian of Palo Alto. Repeat offenders could be fined $100 or up to $528 with fees and get one point added to their driving record. Republican Sen. Ted Gaines of Roseville objected to increasing fines in a poor economy. Simitian responded by saying, “As long as you follow the law, there’s no fine.” He believes SB28 will save lives by deterring distracted driving.

The Governors’ Highway safety Association recommends that states around the country take appropriate measures to cut down on distracted driving. Actually, they are aiming at debunk the theory that hands-free is safer than using a hand-held cell phone. According to their findings there is no evidence indicating that the use of hands-free sets are any safer than handheld sets, and a Virginia Tech study indicated hands-free systems may be beneficial. Yet studies from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety at the University of Utah and Carnegie Mellon have reported that all cell phone use is distracting. They recommend several steps to combat the increasing problem of distracted driving. They recommend the federal government should do following:
• Fund research to develop effective methods for enforcing texting and cell phone bans.
• Fund research to determine the nature and scope of the distracted driving problem.
• Fund a media campaign to alert the public to dangers of distracted driving.
• Develop model policies for employers encouraging them to ban cell phone use/texting by all employees driving for business purposes.
• Provide financial incentives for states that pass comprehensive graduated licensing laws that include cell phone/texting bans for new drivers.
• Support technologies solutions that minimize driver distraction.

The success of such efforts depends on the combination of awareness and enforcement, which are the most effective means of ensuring compliance, as we still have not seen much success with anti-distracted driving laws. Even though California has laws banning handheld cell phone use and texting while driving, we have not seen a dramatic decline in such behaviors. It looks like we have a way to go before new driving behaviors become hard-wired in this state. Distracted driving laws are the begining and base for any campaigns against distraced drving to tak flight. Remember all drunk driving and seatbelt campaigns that were hammered into us before they really took effect. Such campaigns are proof that similar ones addressing distracted driving will most likely lead to substantial reductions in cell phone use while driving, and reduce the risk of accidents. Federal researchers have found that when enforcement campaign combine awareness with the threat of fees and penalties, they are much more effective in reducing distracted driving. We think the main message of any campaign should be: no text or phone call is worth you risking your life.
Continue Reading ›

San Francisco Bay Area Caltrain Accident Takes A Life

August 11, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Today, a Caltrain accident took the life a pedestrian, according to sfexaminer.com, and is yet another reason why we have growing concerns over the safety of our public transportation here in the Bay Area. No details have been released yet. The legal consequences of train accidents can be very complicated and usually involve a number of legal issues, such as causation or comparative negligence, which require the experience of a seasoned attorney. Under California law train companies such as Caltrain have a high duty of care. Caltrain is known as a common carrier because they provide public transportation on daily basis to millions of Californians. Therefore, the law assigns such companies the duty of putting safety first. When they do not act with the upmost duty to ensure safety, this is what is known as negligence. Sadly, sometimes a breach in that duty can cost a person’s life, causing the family members to piece together the tragedy and learn live with their loss in the wake of an accident. Every day, passengers put their lives and their trust in common carriers. Each lawsuit filed against a train companies is a message that tells them it is time to take the safety of the public at large seriously.

Typically there are many factors that determine the worth of case, or what the appropriate settlement or verdict will be. Consequently, any attorney litigating a railroad case must have a comprehension of the many legal and technical factors involving railroads and train accidents, and will usually seek the aid of a railroad accident reconstruction expert in order to build a successful case. Railroad accident reconstruction includes the investigation of any number railroad and train-related factors, such as impact and final rest positions, calculating train speed and braking distance, as well as numerous other factors. It also involves an analysis of the actions of other vehicles involved in a collision with a train such as automobiles and trucks, or analysis of worker, patron, or pedestrian actions in a railroad accident. The findings are referred to as quantifying factors and are then used to produce alternate pre-accident scenarios. Other types of factors include assessing the if the traffic control at a grade crossing, train speed, whether there was sufficient sight distance for train operator, if warning devices were in working order, if the tracks were properly maintained, and if there was a attempt to apply the brakes in a reasonable time frame, etc., etc. Most verdicts and settlements are usually based on some consideration of the facts supplied from accident reconstruction, so it is important to hire an attorney who understands this vital part of the litigation process.
Continue Reading ›

The Daunting Task of Making San Francisco Muni Safer and Fiscally Fit

August 9, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Yesterday we target=”_blank”read about how Muni sent letters to 54 of their operators without licenses, asking them to resolve the situation within two weeks or face termination. Only about a quarter of them came back with a valid driver’s license and returned to duty and 40 did not, despite the threat of termination. As of yet, none have yet been fired. Their contract specifically says having a Class B commercial driver’s license from the Department of Motor Vehicles is a requirement for the job, and if that requirement is not fulfilled, then they can be terminated. 30 drivers have had their licenses suspended because of medical reasons. For their license to be valid, they must pass a check-up once every two years at San Francisco General Hospital. If a potential dangerous health issues shows up, such as high blood sugar and an irregular heartbeat, then the license is immediately suspended until the operator can receive a follow up evaluation and clearance.

Since the suspensions took effect, and been brought to light, the agency has been blocked from hiring more drivers to fill positions. But starting this month, the agency wants to ramp up their efforts to resolve the problems of drivers who cannot drive and find ways to remove those whose problems are irresolvable. A total of 29 have gone on leave sometime in 2010, and 20 went on leave in 2009. Operators who cannot drive pose a very expensive problem for the agency and taxpayers, because they are occupying a position, and yet, even though most operators who are not working are not receiving pay, they still are receiving benefits. Taxpayers may have to pick up the bill if muni is unable to fill the open positions and forced to shuttle passengers. This problem affects all of us, not just the SFMTA.

This whole thing brings up an important point-unhealthy drivers actually operating Muni. So what if an unhealthy Muni driver, one who may have been cleared medically, has an accident due to an illness and causes injuries to San Francisco citizens? It could potentially cost taxpayers and the city unpredictable amounts in medical bills and/or settlements. Remember that light rail crash in 2009 when the driver seemed to have fallen asleep or passed out, crashed and injured 48 people? We don’t need to see that happen again. And don’t forget about all the lawsuits. At the beginning of this year the SFMTA approved settlements for lawsuits filed against the city stemming from an array of mistakes and misdeeds by the city’s bus, light rail and cable car drivers, as reported by ABC News. They totaled a bit under $2.5 million. The following is a breakdown payouts for those accidents for which Muni was involved:
• A woman from Texas was seriously injured when the cable car she was on jumped the tracks. She was knocked unconscious and broke a leg and several bones. She received more than $2 million.
• Another passenger from Texas and her son will receive $50,000 and Fremont man is going to receive $75,000.
• $52,000 went to a woman in a wheelchair whose foot was crushed by a Muni Bus wheel chair lift.
• $5, 214 went to a muni passenger who lamed into the bus’ windshield after the driver suddenly stopped short.

Muni not only needs to become fiscally efficient–it needs to become safer. And not only do drivers need to be properly trained in terms of safety, they need to be well enough physically to perform their jobs. Good luck to the SFMTA on sorting out this difficult problem.
Continue Reading ›

Contaminated Turkey Sold to Consumers in the San Francisco Bay Area

August 5, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Around 36 million pounds of ground turkey has been recalled due to it being linked to 77 incidents of salmonella poisoning and one death in Sacramento, according to sfexaminer.com. The meat in question is packaged under the name of Honeysuckle White-brand turkey products, Kroger ground turkey and Giant Eagle ground turkey and were sold at FoodsCo, Food 4 Less and Winco Foods . Consumers can be return the packages purchased for a full refund. As of Tuesday, six cases have been reported in California-one in San Francisco, one in Los Angeles, one in Riverside, one in San Diego, and two in Sacramento. The strand of bacteria linked to this outbreak is what is known as salmonella Heidelberg and is resistant to most prescribed antibiotics, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. An investigation is being handled by the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service and the CDC. The USDA has warned consumers to fully cook their meat.

It is important to point out that growers, retailers, importers and/or distributors of food owe a duty of care to the consumer not to sell, import or distribute food that is unsafe for human consumption. As such, there exists an implied warranty for goods sold to the consumer. In the case of imported foods, importers must comply with all regulatory requirements surrounding the goods it intends to sell. Usually an importer must hire a customs broker to inspect food, as will the government, certifying that the food is safe and fit for human consumption, which may be the ultimate deciding factor for establishing if the standard of care had been met by the importer.

Advances in food production technology, such as the radio frequency identification tracking system, have allowed the producers of our food the ability to track each piece of produce from moment of harvest to truck to distribution center to retail store, a process that has made it easier than ever to contain and track contamination outbreaks. But these systems are not always a guarantee that contaminated food won’t, or can’t, slip past them and end up on our dinner tables. Food contamination isn’t always the result of a huge farming or harvesting mishaps, though, such as feces making contact with a crop, or an animal on the way to the slaughter, it can sometimes be the result of a farm or warehouse worker not washing their hands or a grocery store worker leaving perishable food out for too long before selling it to a customer.
Continue Reading ›

What Happens When Big Rigs and Trains Collided–One In Sacramento and One In Nevada

August 2, 2011 | Gregory J. Brod

Yesterday a train stuck a big rig in Vacaville, near Vanden and Canon Roads at about 8:30am. The train drove through a truck that was pulling a trailer, according to The Sacramento Bee. A passenger on the train said the train went straight through the middle of a truck that was pulling a trailer. A captain from the Vacaville Fire District aboard the train said by cell phone that the collision happened south of Vacaville where Canon Road crosses the tracks. No injury was reported to the big rig driver, but emergency personnel were assessing possible injuries. The truck driver told the authorities that he never knew the train was coming and that he was waiting at stop sign and didn’t realize the back of his trailer was on the railroad tracks until the collision occurred.

Just last month a similar accident took place in Nevada in which a truck driver plowed into an Amtrak train, according to that area’s local news. The collision killed six people and injured 20 others. Shortly after, Amtrak filed suit against the trucking company in Federal court. Now the trucking company is counter suing Amtrak and Union Pacific, the company that owns the train tacks that Amtrak uses. John DavisTrucking Company is facing a total of five lawsuits, and, according to court documents filed in U.S. district Court in Reno on Friday, their counter suit against Amtrak claims that the railroad companies did not adequately warn drivers of on-coming trains. They believe the evidence will demonstrate that this was an issue involving Amtrak and Union Pacific and failures on their part. They also claim that both Amtrak and Union Pacific breached their duties by allowing trains to accelerate during the approach to the grade crossing and in failing to install, program, and maintain the grade crossing predictor , associated circuitry, and warning device mechanisms so as to provide adequate warning to travelers on Highway 95 of the approach of trains at the crossing-all of which they claim resulted in the driver being unable to stop the truck he was operating in time to avoid colliding with the train. The attorneys for the trucking company have stated they have “significant concerns” regarding the manner in which Amtrak and Union Pacific operated that crossing-both in terms of the train and its operations and the manner in which the crossing was operated for those lawfully on the roads, including John Davis’ truck. So far, Union Pacific and Amtrak have not made themselves available for comment. Although railroad companies have a legal responsibility to make railroad crossings safe, it is still uncertain if that particular section or railroad was indeed unsafe.

Crews have already been combing through debris and have obtained two minutes of color video from Amtrak taken right after the train applied its emergency brakes. Authorities say the video indicated that when the crash happened the weather conditions were clear, the crossing gates were down and the horn and signaling device were operating properly. The National Safety and Transportation Bureau plan to meet with the truck company, whose driver was involved in the crash, and look into health and driving records of the driver and the company’s past. They say they have found the cell phone belonging to the semi-truck driver. The cell phone was sent to Washington D. C. for investigation to see if the driver was using it right before the crash, as it may have been a potential distraction in the crash. It will be around 30 days before a formal report is ready.
Continue Reading ›