Trucker had no choice after vehicle became stuck

After an accident that injured 30 people, 4 severely, police arrested an Oxnard, California resident under suspicion of leaving the scene of an accident with injuries. Jose Alejandro Sanchez-Ramirez’s Ford F-450 truck became stuck on the tracks at 5:45 a.m., which is a blessing due to the lower number of commuters on the train.

The lack of deaths have been contributed to new car designs implemented after a deadly crash a decade ago, which shielded the passengers by directing the force of the collision away from occupied sections of the train.

Conflicting Statements

Mr. Ramirez’s lawyer, Ron Bamieh, issued a statement calling the incident an accident and that Mr. Ramirez attempted to prevent the collision by removing his vehicle from the tracks. Failing that, he attempted to alert the train by turning on his high beams. When it became obvious that the accident could not be avoided, he fled from his vehicle.

Following that, the two narratives diverge. According to the police, he did not reach out to them and was found 1.6 miles away from the scene of the accident. According to phone records, and his statement, Ramirez did reach out and was found only a half-mile away.

Additionally, initial investigations show that the truck was not stuck on the rails in a manner traditionally indicative of being stuck. However, NTSB member Robert Sumwalt made it clear that there is still a possibility that it was an accident. The fact that the intersection where the event took place has seen similar events in the past leads credence to the man’s statement.

Service Restored

Service between Oxnard and Los Angeles was shut down immediately following the accident. It was restored the following day, thanks to the limited damage sustained to the engine and passenger cars.

Why is this relevant to us in our fine state of NC?
Obviously, this didn’t happen here, but if it did, it raises some interesting questions:

1) Is Mr. Ramirez liable for the injuries sustained by the train passengers?
If they can prove that he failed to exercise reasonable care, then yes. But what’s reasonable care? It’s acting as another prudent person would in the same situation. So how did he get stuck? Was it from him driving like a maniac, or was it completely random happenstance? Was there something defective at the crossing that caused him to get stuck and that he couldn’t have foreseen? These are all questions that would need to be answered to answer the main question of liability.

2) What will the passengers see from this claim if he is liable?
Probably not a lot! If only his auto policy is involved, and he’s like the vast majority of other drivers and carries minimum limits of $30,000 per person/$60,000 per accident, they’ll all be fighting over that little pile of money. From a claims value standpoint, they had better hope that IF he’s responsible, he’s a bazillionaire, but if not, that they can prove the state or the train line bears responsibility because their pockets will be much, much deeper.