Lawyer in derailment case says Conrail misled court
A lawyer representing plaintiffs in federal litigation over the 2012 Paulsboro train derailment asserted in a filing Thursday that Conrail misled the court about its training program, leading to an adverse ruling against those suing over the accident and chemical spill.
A lawyer representing plaintiffs in federal litigation over the 2012 Paulsboro train derailment asserted in a filing Thursday that Conrail misled the court about its training program, leading to an adverse ruling against those suing over the accident and chemical spill.
The filing in U.S. District Court in Camden claims an affidavit by a Conrail risk officer provided false testimony, and that the company's training program for conductors - approved by the Federal Railroad Administration months before the Nov. 30, 2012, derailment - was withheld in court.
The plaintiffs' attorney, Mark Cuker, alleges that Conrail instead provided the court with outdated training requirements that were not filed with the FRA. Those requirements, Cuker said, ultimately prompted an August decision by U.S. District Judge Robert B. Kugler to dismiss claims against Conrail for failing to train its conductor and engineer properly, because federal law preempted "any related claims of negligence."
"What we're asking the judge to do is revisit his ruling," Cuker said Thursday, "because it was based on false evidence."
The most recent filing seeking to resurrect some claims follows a series of decisions against the plaintiffs, who include residents, first responders, and others.
Cuker, who represents eight plaintiffs in federal derailment cases and about 1,900 plaintiffs in state lawsuits, said actions by the conductor violated explicit provisions under Conrail's federally approved training program, dated September 2012, which was previously undisclosed in court. Cuker, who said Conrail has withheld relevant documents during discovery, said he only learned of the alleged misrepresentation after consulting an independent rail expert.
Among other things, Cuker argued that the conductor was not trained properly and, unfamiliar with the territory, was required to have been accompanied by an assistant but was not.
"We will file our response to this claim in court and have no further comment at this time," Conrail spokesman Michael Hotra said in an email.
The National Transportation Safety Board, which investigated the derailment, faulted Conrail for a number of reasons - including insufficient training of its crew to inspect lock mechanisms like those on the Jefferson Street Bridge, which were not properly secured when the 82-car freight train proceeded despite a warning light. Seven cars derailed, four into the creek, and one ruptured, leaking 20,000 gallons of carcinogenic vinyl chloride into the air.
The number of claims in federal court continue to decrease as a result of settlements, dismissals, and, most recently, questions raised by the judge about whether plaintiffs' claims are worth $75,000, a threshold that gives the court jurisdiction.
856-779-3917
@AJFichera