Don’t sign. If the railroad has asked you to sign some legal papers, seek legal counsel before you proceed. Some railroad companies have acted reprehensibly in these scenarios, so it is in your best interest to seek legal counsel before signing away your rights.

The specifics of your case determine the answer to this question. It is generally in your best interest to contact an experienced railroad accident lawyer to help you decide what actions to take if you or a loved one has been injured or killed.

Train accident litigation is a complicated legal arena. It is in your best interest to consult an experienced attorney in this area of law. Intense investigation is almost always needed to ensure a successful case. Because of this, it is imperative to act quickly, to ensure that securing evidence and the interviewing of witnesses can be undertaken by your attorney. If you are unsure, you are welcomed to contact our train accident attorneys and set up a free initial consultation to discuss your options.

The answer is dependent on your local jurisdiction. If you are the surviving relative of a train accident victim, then you may be able to file a wrongful death lawsuit for the loss of your loved one. If the victim had a personal injury claim against the railroad for the accident before death, then the personal representative or the executor of the victim’s estate may be able to bring that lawsuit on behalf of the estate. To find out specifics about your jurisdiction, contact an experienced railroad accident attorney.

Railroad companies have no responsibilities greater than they do towards their passengers. Railroads are considered “common carriers” – meaning that they offer transportation services to the public at large for a set fee. Common carriers are held to the highest standard of care for injuries to their own passengers, sometimes including injuries brought upon by third parties, depending on the circumstances. From boarding to exiting, trains must exercise absolute care with their passengers, or else they are potentially liable for any injury their passengers suffer, even if the railroad is only minimally at fault. Again, this includes many cases where the injury is brought upon by a third party, or dangerous weather conditions.

The answer to this question is complicated, and the specifics of any particular case are going to be constrained by a variety of factors. In general, railroads have a mutual and reciprocal responsibility to maintain a safe crossing. This varies state by state, but generally includes sounding the horn both for the required duration and cadence, to travel within the timetable speed, to clear vegetation and other sight obstructions at crossings, and to provide a reasonable smooth and level approach and transition between the roadway and crossing surface. Railroads also have the responsibility to maintain the signs and active warning devices at crossings, if equipped. Finally, railroads have the responsibility to continually inspect the crossing, and if necessary, work with the local road authority to install active warning devices, such as lights and gates.

Far too common. According to the Federal Railroad Administration, there were 2,384 crossing collisions in 2008 alone. Operation Lifesaver estimates that a crossing collision occurs roughly once per two hours in the U.S. The statistics are alarmingly high. The fatalities generated by these tragic accidents run high – 797 in 2008 were killed, while 8,371 were injured.

Alarmed? We are too. That’s why we’re fighting hard to change an industry where bare safety technology is usually not even implemented, and for the victims of this industry.

There are two, equally important ways of approaching this question. First, it is important to emphasize that there are in fact changes being made. Various sectors of the public are well-informed about crossing safety issues and are thus very concerned and active in the push for safety. A tragic series of passenger rail crashes – the California Metrolink crash, then Boston, and now D.C. – has prompted many officials to look intently at railroad safety issues (although the focus here has not been primarily on crossings). While the safety program Operation Lifesaver is callously used by railroad companies for jury tampering (what do I mean?), beneficial safety programs are out there, and new safety improvements are being implemented to various degrees.

In spite of all of this, there can be no doubt that far, far more could be done – particularly by the railroad companies themselves who routinely ignore their public safety responsibilities. Proper warning equipment at railroad crossings costs about $250,000 plus maintenance fees (although railroad companies frequently exaggerate the actual cost of safety equipment to generate the impression that installing safety equipment all over is more implausible than it actually is). However, there is ample new technology available to improve crossing safety that the railroad industry is refusing to embrace. The simple fact of the matter is that it is cheaper for railroads to lose a few lawsuits each year than it would be for them to implement the necessary safety changes to save lives. You’d be amazed to hear the spin put on each case by railroad companies: based on their accounts, you’d think that they must not have any responsibilities at crossings or lights and gates are not effective at reducing the frequency of accidents. This simply isn’t true, but shifting the blame by pointing fingers at states, local municipalities, and victims has proven financially beneficial for the railroads.

So, in short, the railroads have made money off of ignoring safety issues and denying responsibilities at crossings. Even though doing so leads to the loss of life, their financial losses are still less than if they were to actually implement safety technology. At least in the short-run. In the long run, of course, they’d be better off to pour far more dollars into safety improvements.

Two umbrella categories can be used to describe how and why derailments occur: technological malfunction (which includes machinery which unexpectedly fails and unkempt, dangerous tracks) and human error (such as mistakes made by the conductor or engineer, inattentiveness or otherwise). It should be emphasized that both of these things are bound to happen with time, but certain steps can be taken to reduce the risk. Humans, even when well trained and highly qualified, are going to make errors. And in a system like our railroad system, technological errors and malfunctions do take place. In spite of the somewhat inevitable occurrence of these two things, however, derailments still can be largely prevented. When implementing safety technologies it is standard to account for both human error and technological malfunction in the equation. Railroad companies have become known for ignoring these factors as they implement safety technology. A bare minimum of systems safety is not appropriate, because mistakes are bound to overwhelm the system.