Train crash may be linked to text message
Lawyer Blogs
Top officials with the firm that contracts to run Metrolink trains made their first public comments Sunday night about last month's deadly head-on collision of a passenger train with a Union Pacific freight train in Chatsworth.
"Words cannot express how saddened we are over the loss of life and injuries suffered in this terrible accident," said Veolia Transportation Chief Executive Mark Joseph in a written statement given to The Times. "Our hearts are broken and our entire company is stricken with grief."
"Whether the result of human error, system failure, or other causes, we will share in the broad responsibility of finding solutions to lessen the risks inherent in passenger rail service," Joseph added. "Public transportation is an essential service for everyday life in this country, and this tragedy underscores more than ever before the need of improving our public transportation systems."
In an interview in San Diego, where Veolia officials are attending a mass transit convention this week, Joseph emphasized the firm's safety record and said Veolia is participating in the investigation of the crash by the National Transportation Safety Board.
Veolia officials said that the NTSB has asked them not to discuss the crash while the probe continues, and they declined comment on all questions relating to potential causes of the crash, which killed 25 people. They also declined to discuss the personnel record of Robert Sanchez, the engineer of the Metrolink train who was an employee of Veolia and who was killed in the crash.
The NTSB has said the Metrolink train ran a red signal intended to stop the train before entering a stretch of single track in use by an eastbound Union Pacific freight train.
In addition, the NTSB has said preliminary data indicates that 57 text messages were sent from or received by Sanchez's cellphone while he was on duty on the day of the crash, including one sent 22 seconds before the collision. The agency, however, cautioned that the precise timing of the messages needed to be verified.
"I think up to this accident, we had the strongest [cellphone] policy in the business given the ones I'd seen," said Ronald J. Hartman, an executive vice president for rail for Veolia.
Hartman said Veolia's policy prohibits cellphone use by engineers and requires that devices be turned off and out of reach while engineers are in the cab of a locomotive. He said Veolia engineers encounter supervisors on a daily basis and that supervisors check for cellphone usage.
He added that Veolia supervisors sometimes call engineers' cellphones -- when the numbers for those phones are available -- to see if engineers are using phones while operating trains.
Related listings
-
Top court stays out of DVR patent fight
Lawyer Blogs 10/06/2008The Supreme Court refused Monday to disturb a $74 million judgment against Dish Network Corp. for violating a patent held by TiVo Inc. involving digital video recorders.Without comment, the justices declined to consider Englewood, Colo.-based Dish's ...
-
Supreme Court rejects jury Bible case
Lawyer Blogs 10/06/2008The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider a murder case in which a jury foreman read passages of the Bible to hold-out jurors who subsequently voted to impose the death penalty.Without comment, the justices declined to consider whether the jury...
-
Railroad regulators issue emergency cell phone ban
Lawyer Blogs 10/04/2008Federal regulators issued an emergency order Thursday banning use of cell phones and other electronic devices by rail workers, a day after investigators said a commuter-train engineer was text messaging moments before a deadly crash last month.Violat...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.