PITTSBURGH – An Ohio rail company has resolved claims connected to the death of a 15-year-old girl, who was struck by a train while crossing a railroad bridge in South Fayette Township nearly three years ago.
Heidi A. Charles (individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of J.G., deceased and A.G., a minor, as a parent and natural guardian of a minor) of South Fayette Township first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Aug. 5 versus Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company, of Brewster, Ohio.
“On June 24, 2020, at approximately 11:14 a.m., decedent, plaintiff A.G. and a group of teenagers were walking along the railroad tracks adjacent to the Railroad Bridge. At said date and time, decedent and two other teenagers from the group proceeded along the railroad tracks and onto the Railroad Bridge, while plaintiff A.G. and the remaining teenagers from the group broke away and walked along a route that took them under the Railroad Bridge. At the time decedent entered onto the Railroad Bridge, she was unaware that a train was approaching,” the suit said.
“Due to the configuration of the Railroad Bridge, once decedent was on it, there was nowhere for her to safely move to avoid being struck by defendant’s suddenly-appearing and unexpected train. Defendant was aware of this configuration of the Railroad Bridge and the risk it posted to children and teenagers confronted with a suddenly-appearing and unexpected train. While walking across the Railroad Bridge, decedent was violently and without warning struck by defendant’s train, at which time she was thrown off the Railroad Bridge onto the pavement below.”
The suit added that plaintiff A.G. witnessed her sister’s fall and subsequent death, that at no time prior to entering onto the Railroad Bridge did the defendant’s train sound its horn or reduce its speed, despite allegedly knowing that the Railroad Bridge area was regularly entered and/or crossed by children and teenagers.
“Decedent, because of her youth, did not realize and/or fully appreciate the risks associated with walking along the Railroad Bridge and/or the adjacent railroad tracks, specifically the potential for a train to suddenly and without advanced notice or warning come upon those walking along the Railroad Bridge and/or adjacent railroad tracks. Decedent, because of her youth, did not realize and/or fully appreciate that once she was on the Railroad Bridge, she had no means of safely avoiding any train which suddenly and without advanced notice or warning entered onto the Railroad Bridge,” the suit stated.
“Defendant did and realize and appreciate or should have realized and appreciated the risk posed to children and teenagers, including decedent, by its trains entering onto the Railroad Bridge when said children and teenagers were situated on the Railroad Bridge. Despite said realization and appreciation, defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent children and teenagers who routinely entered onto and crossed over its tracks from traversing the railroad tracks and entering onto the Railroad Bridge.”
The defendant removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 30, citing diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount of damages at issue.
The rail company answered the complaint on Sept. 6, denying any and all responsibility for the young girl’s death and providing nine affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred and/or reduced by decedent’s and A.G.’s contributory negligence and/or comparative fault. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by decedent’s and A.G.’s assumption of the risk. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred and/or reduced by decedent’s highly reckless conduct and disregard for her own safety,” per those same defenses.
“Some or all of plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by state or federal law including, but not limited to, the Federal Rail Safety Act of 1970, and applicable state or federal regulations. Plaintiff’s decedent was an unlawful trespasser at the time of the accident, and defendant pleads all terms and provisions of 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8339.1 as a bar to plaintiffs’ claims. To the extent that discovery reveals the same to be appropriate, defendant pleads the expiration of the statute of limitations as a complete bar to plaintiffs’ claims. To the extent that discovery reveals the same to be appropriate, plaintiffs’ claims are barred and/or reduced for failure to mitigate damages as required by law. Defendant reserves the right to amend its affirmative defenses.”
UPDATE
On March 9, it was reported that a five month-long mediation in the case had been successful, subsequent to a session held between the parties the prior day and the matter had been resolved. The mediation was conducted by attorney John M. Noble, though terms of any resolution were not noted on the filing.
The plaintiffs were represented by Mark F. McKenna of McKenna & Associates, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant was represented J. Lawson Johnston and Scott D. Clements of Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-01248
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-007056
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com