John Bruce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> This is going to take a while to download and
> read, though summaries have appeared in the press
> over the past several weeks.

I would encourage you to read the whole thing, Mr. Bruce, particularly the parts that explain the relationship between SCRRA and its contractors. Pay close attention to how oversite of contact employees is addressed, particularly T&E employees of Veolia (and Amtrak before that).

> One thing that
> interests me is that a few days ago a law firm
> representing Chatsworth victims went public with a
> claim that Connex/Veolia supervisors had
> repeatedly been warned that Sanchez was texting on
> duty.
> [www.sanfernandosun.com]
> ?option=com_content&task=view&id=3166&Itemid=2

I don't think the quotation you cite [below] acutally states the unnamed employee "repeatedly" warned anybody, nor does it explain the circumstances of the claim, or the outcome. If it does, please show me.

> The San Fernando Valley Sun article says in part,
> "Edward Pfiester, attorney for the law firm of
> Hildebrand, McLeod & Nelson, who is representing
> them, along with 15 other victims, both alive and
> deceased, said that he spoke with a co-worker of
> engineer Robert Sanchez who told him he had warned
> supervisors prior to the crash about Sanchez
> texting and cell phone use during work hours.

>snip<

> It goes on, "Pfiester added that a few months
> prior to the crash, an inspector for Veolia
> Transportation, the company Sanchez worked for,
> 'busted Sanchez' when they found a cell phone in
> his bag, which is against company rules." (Other
> news accounts say that the "bust" included finding
> the cell phone turned on -- I think it's OK if
> it's off.

First I've heard of it. However, not being an employee of SCRRA or its contractors (sorry to disappoint you, Mr. Bruce), I can't address what the "company rules" are. However, if this happened "a few months prior to the crash" as stated, it would not have been a prohibited act by the FRA.

>snip<

> OPRRMS
> has pooh-poohed this all along, among other things
> challenging me to find an attorney who will sue
> Veolia, Metrolink, and others for "failure to
> supervise".
>
> OPRRMS, seems like this has happened. And I
> really wonder what your role in all this has been.

I'm afraid, Mr. Bruce, that you've misunderstood what the lawsuit you cite [above] is all about. It isn't about "failure to supervise," as you put it. I you read the safety panel's report, you'll see that the members found both SCRRA and Violia to be in compliance with T&E supervision as required by 49 CFR 217.

Now let me tell you a little bit about Ed Pfiester. He's an established attorney in Los Angeles specializing in FELA cases (which, by the way, only involve railroad employees, not the general public). His office used to be on Riverside Drive across I-5 from the Atwater District, but I'm not sure about his current situation since affiliating with Hidebrand, McCloud & Nelson (their offices are in Oakland).

Ed has obtained many favorable settlements for railroad employees and others over the years, some apparently better than others. That's how Ed makes his livelyhood; if he doesn't produce, he won't be in business. Like other such attorneys, he has investigators working for him to help collect information that will - hopefully - be useful to his client(s). But whether such information is in fact useful won't be known until a verdict is reached. If the jury is persuaded by it, one would say it's useful. In this specific instance, a jury will more likely to be persuaded if the claim can be supported by actual, producable (i.e., written, rather than "I told them") facts to back it up. Ed can say whever he wants to the press - after all, it's in his best interest to keep his name in the paper - but in the end the jury will have the final say. Same thing applies to the lawyer for the Metrolink conductor who claims that the signal at CP Topanga was green.

So you see, Mr. Bruce, the lawsuit isn't about "supervision" or rather, the lack thereof. Rather it's about trying to obtain monetary damages for injuries and death for those individuals who've contracted with Mr. Pfiesfer for that exact purpose.

Your move, Mr. Bruce. Let's see how many posts this thread will produce.