Fatal Incident: Clarendon Hills

Regardless of any construction that may have been going on, the truck didn't clear the intersection and should have never stopped on the tracks.

How does that become the village's fault or liability?...


Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Pockets Mr. Olesen --- deep pockets.

And I going to have to do my part to pay for it.

Something tells me the Village's insurers have deeper ones than does that trucking company. Absent they being placcarded for a major appliance or furniture retailer around here - Best Buy, Abt, Smythe - whatever minimum insurance the operator has is what they have. What if all they have is, say, $250K, you can be sure the Village's insurer can expect a knock on the door.

So for that matter, can Warren.

Please let us know when there is a claim that affects the village's insurance rate.

Mr. Lurker, don't think they will be advertising it in any Trustee Topics newsletter anytime soon.

Minutes for public meetings including budgets should not be hard to obtain. They may discuss any lawsuits "in executive session" but any spending would be a matter of public record. That being said, I do not expect this incident to affect the insurance rates for the village in any noticeable way. But as you are local to the situation I will rely on you for any updates.

Mr. Lurker, I'm not certain where you reside in the Chicago area; for all I know it's Hinsdale or Westmont.

But all I know is that "my town of forty-three years (closed on my house July 31, 1979)" has a "forever Black eye" for being the site of the first Chicago Sub revenue passenger fatality since Downers Grove during 1947. While the present incident cannot be attributed to railroad negligence - and the earlier noted only partly - it nevertheless happened - and in my town!!

Neighbors who know I was once in the railroad industry have asked me "what happened" to which I have explained what the NTSB ("gee, aren't they just planes?") is and how they release first a preliminary and final report.

So you do have a point in that it is much too early to tell if any insurance premium adjustment to the Village's liability coverage will impact my Real Estate taxes, but I fail to see how the Village can avoid any liability from this matter. Had you occasion to observe yourself the condition of the Prospect Ave X-ing on the eve of the incident, you would hold same.

I'm failing to see how the condition of the road is relevant. It didn't force the driver to proceed across the tracks without enough room to clear the tracks.

Deep pockets might entice a lawyer to go after the town, but it won't impress a jury to find them liable for whats ultimately the bad decisions of a driver.

I'd think the family has a better case against Nippon Sharyo for building a car that didn't keep the victim from being ejected... and they have much deeper pockets than the village.

Let's see what the causal factors are in the final report. That will be a lot more damning at trial than assertions and assumptions by ambulance chasing lawyers.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Mr. Olesen, all I can say as I have to Mr. Lurker, is you should have seen the condition of the X-ing on May 10 - the Eve of the incident.

That the Village "owns".

I for one, would take that X-ing at 5mph. Lady Lex would be less than happy if I took it any faster. How often when I was on foot did I hear autos "bottoming out"?

Now your point regarding the lead N-S car. When I first observed the scene 5A May 12, I noted that a window emergency exit was removed on the Fireman side (Engineer side "off limits"). So what I don't know - and presumably the Final will address is what side was the passenger ejected?

I think Mr. Sharyo would like to think that if he built a car that passed whatever test a regulatory agency threw at him, he's off the hook. For around here, we know he's had a little experience regarding what when one of his designed cars does not pass such test.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:11 pmSo what I don't know - and presumably the Final will address is what side was the passenger ejected?

Such was reported earlier in this thread. Video of the ejection was shown (with the body blurred) in a video posted by the Chicago CBS affiliate. What the NTSB stated they did not know at the time of the initial press conference was where the victim was seated before ejection (whether she was thrown from engineer side through the car and out the opposite window or whether she was on the opposite side of the car and was pushed through the window by debris or other movement in the cabin). Since there is not a fireman in a gallery cab car there isn't a fireman's side. The video evidence is supported by news coverage showing workers on the second track under a tent set up where the victim's body came to rest.

I am sorry for your loss. Obviously you are taking this incident personally, especially as it seems your friends are calling on you to answer for the railroad. Hopefully some day you can enjoy your strolls near the ROW again.

The condition of the road may have been rough enough that a low clearance luxury vehicle needed to cross at 5 MPH. Are you claiming that the road was rough enough that a higher clearance truck had to stop and stay on the track?

Mr. Lurker, thank you for the "memory refresh" that I did note, from the TV coverage, a tent placed ("pitched") around the Fireman side emergency exit. That tent had been removed by the time I got to the scene following morning.

I was not about to go the scene on May 11 - the day of the incident. My neighbors with small children were deliberately staying away from such, and I thought it best that I follow suit.

I cannot begin to count the times my right of way has been violated by drivers who decided I didn't X at a speed to their satisfaction. How many times have I heard horns beeping there when I have been on foot?

Even if I were to drive about in a 20yo "rolling total", I would not have been going over that X-ing any faster than 5mph. Now that it has been repaired and is "nice and smooth", I'm still turning West on Burlington - and 10mph is fast enough.

There should be a traffic signal on either side of the tracks at that intersection much the same as there is in Westmont on Cass Ave. That is controlled by the County. Prospect is the Village - and guarantee you the Politburu is not about to allow that.

Thank you by answering my direct question by ignoring it. I take it that you agree that the tracks were not too bumpy for a large truck to traverse?

Should you decide to make your request of the village I hope they do not discount your experience and opinion due to the communist references to their authority. And I truly hope that your taxes do not go up due to this incident. Budgets are tight enough.

It is absolutely no surprise to me that the condition of Prospect Avenue through the X-ing is being cited as an attributing cause of the incident:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/patch.com/ ... rain-crash

Fair Use:

A day after the crash, the family's attorney, Steve Jambois, said in a news conference that the construction at the intersection may have caused problems.

"That was an accident waiting to happen," he said. "People were in harm's way quite frequently. I know there were numerous residents who have come forward to make complaints to the city."

After confusion between the village and the state, the village acknowledged to Patch that it was in charge of the project.

So far the family is suing Metra, "BNSF Railway, Del's Moving and Sabrija Cubic, a Del's employee" with other parties to be named later.

Thanks for the update.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:It is absolutely no surprise to me that the condition of Prospect Avenue through the X-ing is being cited as an attributing cause of the incident

It's being cited by an attorney who has apparently sued everyone except for the other passengers onboard...

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk