MBTA Commuter Rail, Buses, Subway, & Railroad Crashes

Train workers injured by failure to monitor their work

Two railroad workers were severely injured while working in a tunnel when they were struck by a moving MBTA train as a result of improper monitoring of their work.

MBTA Commuter Rail, Buses, Subway, & Railroad Crashes

Cases involving the MBTA, Amtrak and other railroad companies are governed by a detailed, inter-related set of state and federal statutes and regulations. These laws govern such things as speed, use of signals and horns, staffing of railroad equipment, employee hours, right of way on tracks, ownership and control of tracks and crossings, and behavior at crossings. The laws also dictate when and how claims for personal injuries against railroad companies can be brought. SUGARMAN attorneys possess the most comprehensive understanding of these complex laws as well as the experience in representing those injured in such claims.

Nna, et al. v. American Standard, Inc., 630 F. Supp. 2d 115 (2009)

In an action brought by the widow and injured co-workers of a Massachusetts transportation company employee for a defectively designed warning device (train horn), SUGARMAN attorneys reached a settlement after the Court rejected the horn manufacturer’s claim that the horn was not defective and did not play a role in causing the accident.

Tryon v. City of Lowell, 29 Mass. App. Ct. 720 (1991)

The Superior Court’s judgment for the defendant was overturned because the extent of the duty owed by the City to an injured child was a question of fact for the jury to determine, and the defendant could not avoid liability under the discretionary function exemption of the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (G. L. c. 258, §10(b)). At trial, the jury awarded the plaintiffs damages for injuries to a child trespasser after his arm was run over by a train as he walked along railroad tracks on his way to school.

Mirageas v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 391 Mass. 815 (1984)

After a 13-year-old was run over by an MBTA trolley, the teenager’s foot was amputated. The jury verdict was affirmed on appeal, with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court holding that the defendant waived its defense under G. L. c. 161A, §21, and that the damages awarded were not excessive.