More and more cities are thinking about installing light rail on city streets as the federal government holds out the prospect of greater subsidies diverted from gasoline tax funds. The California Court of Appeal on August 30 ruled that a lower court erred in throwing out a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles for negligence in a fatal accident involving a metro Blue Line train. The incident reveals the significant threat high-speed rail can pose when run on streets designed for automobiles.
At 8am on March 1, 2004 Abraham Tovar had been driving with his wife Sara and son Steven when he made a left-hand turn at the intersection at Wilmington Avenue and Willowbrook Avenue East. The turn was illegal, but Abraham Tovar apparently did not see the flashing lights of the gate or hear the bells of the approaching train. Because of a curve in the road, the train operator did not see Tovars’ car until it crossed the track. The train hit the vehicle at 55 MPH, hurling it 300 feet while the train braked. Sara Tovar died of her injuries.
The surviving Tovars sued the county’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority for negligence, asserting that the Metro system creates a well-known and significant hazard for drivers who were, according to highway safety expert Robert Foster Douglas, frequently confused by inadequate signage warning of the left-turn prohibition. As a result, such turns into the train’s path are common. The lower court judge suppressed this evidence.
“Plaintiffs proffered videotaped evidence of motorists turning left at the Willowbrook-Wilmington intersection which showed that the condition of public property at that intersection increased the risk of such turns or permitted motorists to make such turns,” Court of Appeal Justice Patti S. Kitching wrote. “That the turns on the videotape did not result in accidents did not make the evidence of such turns irrelevant to the determination of whether the intersection was a dangerous condition of public property. That videotaped evidence should have been admitted.”
Accident reconstruction expert James Sobek testified that of 500 intersections he has examined, this is the second most dangerous of all with ten times the expected rate of collisions. The appeals court ruled that the trial court was wrong to suppress this evidence as well.
The Tovars, however, lost on other aspects of their suit. The city did make engineering changes to improve safety at the intersection, but state law specifically protects municipalities from allowing this fact to be admitted as evidence of prior negligence. The appellate court did not believe the Tovars met their burden of proof about the inherent danger of the intersection in question.
“The defects alleged by plaintiffs were poorly placed or missing signs, ambiguous or inconspicuous striping on street pavements, a center median that did not physically prevent a left-turning driver from crossing the tracks, and a failure to provide closing gates at the intersection of Wilmington and Willowbrook, all of which alleged defects were on property owned by the city, not by the MTA,” Kitching wrote. The order granting the MTA’s motion for nonsuit as to dangerous condition of public property is affirmed.”
Overall, however, the Tovars won a victory.
“We conclude that the evidentiary rulings prevented plaintiffs from presenting evidence important to their cause of action for dangerous condition of public property as to the city, and we reverse the judgment in favor of the city,” Kitching concluded.
A copy of the decision is available in a 200k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: 
Tovar v. Los Angeles County MTA (Court of Appeal, State of California, 8/30/2010)
[Courtesy:Thenewspaper.com]
Uh… I think you mean light rail, not high-speed which has a very specific meaning.rail…
High speed rail doesn’t run on the street. People are going to have to re-learn how to share the road with light rail; it’s nothing their parents, grandparents, and European cousins couldn’t do. Try following a streetcar up Arlington Ave in Pittsburgh some time (maybe some time 30 years ago for the extra flavor of danger).
You aren’t quite correct when you say that “The incident reveals the significant threat high-speed rail can pose when run on streets designed for automobiles.” The Blue Line runs on a freight rail right-of-way in this area, not on streets. Perhaps the transit agency and the city could have done more to prevent an accident like this, but clearly the driver should have exercised due caution in crossing the railroad tracks.
The Blue Line is far and away the most dangerous rail line in the country, and the at-grade crossings of the freight right-of-way are largely to blame for this. Light rail lines that run on streets have their own problems, but that’s not the issue here.
Hmm. Illegal turn, ignoring the “no left turn signs”, a gate, flashing lights and the train’s horn. And the driver is suing the government for his wreck?!
Why are we always enabling people who want to blame someone else for their mistakes? How much tax money was wasted defending this lawsuit?
BTW, the “safety expert” who says people were “confused” by the signs is hired by the lawyers bringing the lawsuit! How do we know if people were ignoring the signs because they just wanted to turn left anyway?
We can only be glad that the story isn’t about a jury that decided to throw millions of someone else’s money at a weeping family.
I ride the LA light rail, and I would be shocked if it was going 55 mph through a grade crossing. If it was, that may be negligent at such a complex intersection, but the suit doesn’t seem to be about that at all. It’s the same old “cat in the microwave” (failure to warn us not to do something stupid) claim.
IMO, idiot that he is for not paying proper respect to multi-ton TRAINS, he should be thankful that he didn’t die.
However, as he’s still alive, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for the traffic violation that he committed, along with countersued to recover all of the costs (including legal fees) caused by his willful negligence and recklessness.
Then his suit can be thrown out as resulting from an illegal act.
Agreed. This case sould be thrown out.
This is an example of the relationship that lawyers enjoy with judges who were once lawyers themselves. Allowing such an obviuosly frivolous lawsuit is whats wrong, not the light rail system. Should the State, county, or train line be held responsible if a car is hit while crosing the tracks in a rural area where ther are no crossing gaurds? OR, do we assume that people who live in rural areas actually have the sense to approach a railroad crossing with caution and pay attention to the pretty flashing lights that warn you when a train is approaching? I guess this could also be an example of how with a high density of people comes a high density of idiots.
I’m not sure how anyone could think a left turn there was allowable, given the actual layout of the road which basically forces you into an angled right turn from Willowbrook onto Wilmington. To turn left you even have to proceed against traffic, nevermind the presence of the train. It’s really a case of willful negligence on the part of the driver, not the danger of light rail.
It seems to some commenters here, that the suppression of evidence by the government is just fine.
What do you mean by “government”? It was a lower court judge who suppressed the evidence. Although the appellate court ruled that the video tape evidence should have been admitted, it sustained the suppression of other evidence which the plaintiffs wanted admitted.
No but I am fine with a court throwing out the case in its entirety. Just because somebody files a case doesn’t mean the court has to go through a trial to determine that it is meritless. I broke my toe last week, should I sue the manufacturer of the tub that I stubbed it on and the construction company that installed? Or, should I be more carefull and step higher next time while leaving the tub? If I did bring a suit against the manufacturer and installer should a court hear the case or throw it out as having no merit? The answers to these questions should be obvious.
Guy made illegal left turn. Crash is his fault.
Can’t believe the lackadaisical court system lets these irresponsible people and their ambulance chasers waste tax money like so.
Lawsuit needs to be thrown out, suer and his enabling shark need to be sued for maliciously wasting taxpayer money with this frivolous let’s-see-if-we-win-lottery lawsuit.
There have been several accidents in Houston with their light rail cars. Even one with a Metro bus. In all cases the driver was at fault for making illegal turns in front of the trains. Have not heard of anyone winning a case in court against Metro for an “unsafe condition” and we got some pretty high profile lawyers and ambulance chasers here.
Plaintiff made an illegal left but it’s worth noting that the crossing gates are over 300ft apart due to the direction/angle that the tracks cross Wilmington Ave and then Willowbrook Ave joins Wilmington between the gates, off center, just North of the tracks. Drivers can only turn right in part due to Wilmington’s center median posted with ‘right turn only’ and ‘no left’ signs.
Crossing gates and lights are not necessary where Willowbrook meets Wilmington, in theory, as long as drivers turn right and thereby avoid the tracks altogether. It’s a weird intersection, no doubt. Google Earthed it.
An errant driver can physically and illegally turn left onto Wilmington and imediately cross paths with a commuter train without seeing red lights or hearing bells.
When one ignores a ‘no left’ sign, usually they are in danger of a traffic ticket. In this case the sign should read “Turn Left and Die!”