PITTSBURGH – By order of a federal judge, 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 three years ago, under seal.
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, 2022 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, 2022, citing diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount of damages at issue.
The rail company answered the complaint on Sept. 6, 2022, 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.”
It was reported on March 9 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.
UPDATE
On July 14, the parties jointly filed a motion to bring the settlement forward under seal.
“Under the terms of the releases signed in this matter, the terms and conditions of the settlement, including the amount of the settlement and distribution of the settlement, are to be confidential. The releases also contain a non-disparagement agreement. Pennsylvania law requires that any compromise or settlement of an action in which damages are sought to be recovered on behalf of an estate be approved by the Court. Settlements are not routinely made part of the judicial record. As a result of the settlement reached by the parties at the ADR session, plaintiff, on behalf of the Estate, intends to file an amended petition for allocation and distribution of settlement proceeds. The disclosure of the financial terms of the settlement infringes on plaintiffs’ rights to privacy. Further, the disclosure of the settlement terms and amount will prejudice defendant in current or future matters and will undermine defendant’s negotiating position,” the motion stated.
“As this is a private dispute between private parties, no discernible public interest is served by the disclosure of the settlement terms, settlement amount, settlement distribution, or the details of the plaintiffs’ costs, expenses and fee arrangement with counsel. The privacy rights of plaintiff outweighs any right to access the judicial record filings in compliance with Pennsylvania statutory law involving these actions made part of the judicial record. Due to the confidential nature of the settlement itself, the parties request leave of court for plaintiff file to file her amended petition under seal. The courts have permitted the sealing of documents when justice so requires and upon showing specific, compelling, countervailing interests to be protected by nondisclosure. The information contained in the amended petition includes the kind of information that courts will protect, and the disclosure of such information would work a clearly defined and serious injury to the parties seeking closure of this matter. The parties hereby incorporate by reference their joint brief in support of their motion for leave to file under seal certain exhibits to petitions for court approval of settlement involving an estate and a minor filed on April 10, 2023, in connection with this matter.”
The very same day, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Marilyn J. Horan approved the seal motion and its terms.
The plaintiffs are represented by Mark F. McKenna of McKenna & Associates, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is 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