Translate this page

Witness: Engineer Had Time to Stop Train Before Fatal Wreck


Monday, March 11th, 2013
Issue 11, Volume 17.


RIVERSIDE - A Union Pacific Railroad Co. train that crashed into a vehicle stuck on tracks in downtown Riverside, killing a driver who was drunk at the wheel and another young woman, could have been brought to a full stop well before the point of impact, a witness testified today.

Colon R. Fulk, a train engineer for more than three decades and a frequent expert witness in train-related lawsuits, said if he had been at the throttle of the 86-car UPR train involved in the Nov. 1, 2007, collision, he would have pulled the emergency brake at the first sign of trouble.

"I would have applied the brakes right now," Fulk testified under questioning by plaintiffs' attorney Ron Makarem. "When (the conductor and engineer) saw those headlights bouncing, they had 2,700 feet to go. You don't know for sure what's up there. Why take a chance?"

The families of Renee Ammari, 23, and 18-year-old Tanya Sayegh sued UPR for undisclosed compensatory and punitive damages. Makarem told City News Service the sum sought was seven figures long, without specifying the amount.

Testimony in the trial began last Wednesday. Fulk was the third witness called by the plaintiffs, who are expected to close their case Wednesday.

According to Fulk, his review of the actions of the conductor and engineer aboard the UPR train that fateful night raised several questions, including why the engineer was continuing to increase the locomotive's power when the crew first spotted what appeared to be car headlights on -- or in very close proximity to -- the railroad tracks a quarter-mile ahead.

"The train engineer could see two miles down the line," Fulk testified. "They knew the area, knew the road, knew the crossing. If you've got some headlights looking at you -- that's pretty serious."

Fulk said the 8-million-pound train was at 75 percent power until just seconds before impact.

"Moving that throttle to idle takes a second or less," the witness said.

In his opening statement last week, defense attorney Anthony Sonnett told jurors that the conductor and engineer had followed protocol and reacted as they should have, applying the pneumatic brakes and chopping the locomotive's power once they verified a vehicle was in the train's path. By that time, however, the train was only a few hundred feet from impact.

Sonnett argued that yanking the mile-long freight train's emergency brake could have triggered a derailment, jeopardizing motorists on the nearby Riverside (91) Freeway, as well as area residents.

Fulk called that scenario doubtful.

"I pulled the emergency brake 40 or 50 times in my career. There was never a derailment," the witness testified.

Ammari and Sayegh, both of San Bernardino, had been at a Halloween party at Cafe Sevilla in downtown Riverside just before they were killed. According to investigators, they left the party around 1 a.m., heading southeast on Mission Inn Avenue. Ammari turned her 1996 Honda Passport SUV onto a gravel strip that straddles three sets of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks at Santa Fe Avenue.

According to a coroner's report, Ammari had a blood-alcohol level that was nearly twice the legal limit to operate a motor vehicle in California at the time.

Coroner's officials said the disoriented woman apparently realized her mistake and attempted to make a U-turn on the tracks to get back to Mission Inn, but her SUV became stuck between the tracks and a retaining wall, with the rear of the vehicle hanging over the last pair of tracks and the headlights pointing at the wall.

Witnesses reported seeing both women outside the vehicle, looking around.

Sonnett said the women had 50 seconds to walk away before the northbound train, traveling at 36 mph, reached their location.

Coroner's officials said video from the train's front camera recorded the image of a woman standing on the passenger side of a vehicle with her hands stretched in front of her chest.

The locomotive knocked the SUV end-over-end into the women. Sayegh was pronounced dead at the scene. Ammari died about five hours later at Riverside Community Hospital.


Jury Seated for Trial of Lawsuit Against Railroad Over 2007 Deaths of Two Women

RIVERSIDE - A jury was seated today for a civil trial to resolve claims of negligence against Union Pacific Railroad in connection with the deaths of two women struck by a mile-long train in Riverside.

After more than two days of screening prospects, a 10-man, four-woman panel was chosen to hear evidence in the case, which stems from a Nov. 1, 2007, crash that killed 23-year-old Renee Ammari and 18-year-old Tanya Sayegh, both of San Bernardino.

The families of the two close friends are seeking seven-figure compensatory and punitive damage awards. The plaintiffs' attorney, Ron Makarem, told City News Service he will disclose the exact amount being sought at the end of the trial.

"Had the crew of the Union Pacific Railroad Company been alert and attentive, as per the rules governing railroad operations, they then would have seen the flashing warning-hazard lights of the (women's) vehicle and timely applied the emergency brakes." Makarem said. "Their negligent actions resulted in the deaths of two young women."

Defense attorney Anthony Sonnett said the engineer and conductor -- the only occupants of the 86-car train -- reacted as they should have given the circumstances that fateful night.

"They were alert. Their actions were extremely proper," Sonnett said. "Monday morning quarterbacking is great. You Advertisement
Advertisement for Pala Mesa Resort
[ Pala Mesa Resort ]
can go over and over and over situations. Fact is, these two hard-working men did the best they could. They did not put that vehicle on the tracks. This tragic tale had already been written by the time the engineer sounded the whistle."

The plaintiffs contend the UPR crew members should have pulled the 5,609- foot train's emergency break the moment they could make out the rear of Ammari's 1996 Honda Passport SUV stuck on the tracks.

But according to the defense, yanking the emergency handle could have resulted in the 8-million-pound train derailing and flinging heavy debris onto the Riverside (91) Freeway nearby or houses in the immediate area, potentially injuring or killing people.

In depositions taken by the plaintiffs, the crew acknowledged seeing lights on the tracks about a quarter-mile before the train reached the impact point, but there was no way to know exactly what they were seeing because Ammari's vehicle was angled in such a way that her headlights were shining on a wall -- not toward the approaching train.

The crew immediately began sounding the train's horn and engaging its pneumatic brakes when it became apparent they were on a collision course, but with only a couple of hundred feet to go, there was no way to halt the three- engine locomotive in time, according to the defense.

According to a coroner's report, Ammari had a blood-alcohol level that was nearly twice the legal limit to operate a motor vehicle in California at the time of the accident. Sonnett alleged Sayegh was also under the influence.

The women had been at a Halloween party at Cafe Sevilla in downtown Riverside. According to investigators, they left the party around 1 a.m., heading southeast on Mission Inn Avenue. Ammari turned onto a gravel strip that straddles three sets of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks at Santa Fe Avenue.

According to coroner's officials, the disoriented Ammari apparently realized her mistake and attempted to make a U-turn on the tracks to get back to Mission Inn, but the SUV became stuck between the tracks and a retaining wall.

Witnesses reported seeing both women outside the vehicle, looking around on the ground.

Sonnett said the women had 50 seconds to walk away before the northbound train, traveling at 35 mph, reached their location.

Coroner's officials said video from the train's front camera recorded the image of a woman standing on the passenger side of a vehicle with her hands stretched in front of her chest.

The locomotive knocked the SUV end-over-end into the women. Sayegh was pronounced dead at the scene. Ammari died about five hours later at Riverside Community Hospital.


Jury Selection Starts in Suit Against Railroad over Women's Deaths

RIVERSIDE - Jury selection got under way today for a civil trial to resolve claims of negligence against Union Pacific Railroad in connection with the deaths of two women struck by a train in Riverside more than five years ago.

Attorneys for the families of 23-year-old Renee Ammari and 18-year-old Tanya Sayegh, both of San Bernardino, are seeking unspecified monetary and punitive damages against UPR for the Nov. 1, 2007, crash that killed the close friends.

Riverside County Superior Court Judge John Vineyard summoned several panels of prospective jurors to the Riverside Historic Courthouse for questioning as to their qualifications and availability. There was standing- room-only in the packed courtroom.

Jury selection is expected to span the entire week.

Last week, Vineyard granted the plaintiffs' request to ask about the conductor's training on how to use a train emergency break, which goes to the heart of the lawsuit's contention that the UPR crew bears responsibility for the fatalities by failing to slow the 86-car locomotive in time to prevent it from smashing into the victims.

Ammari and Sayegh were struck after Ammari drove her black 1996 Honda Passport SUV onto tracks crossing Mission Inn Avenue.

According to a coroner's report, Ammari had a blood-alcohol level that was nearly twice the legal limit to operate a motor vehicle in California at the time of the accident.

The women had been at a Halloween party at Cafe Sevilla in downtown Riverside just before they were killed. According to investigators, they left the party around 1 a.m., heading southeast on Mission Inn Avenue. Ammari turned onto a gravel strip that straddles a pair of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks at Santa Fe Avenue.

According to coroner's officials, the disoriented Ammari apparently realized her mistake and attempted to make a U-turn on the tracks to get back to Mission Inn, but the SUV became stuck between the tracks and a retaining wall.

Witnesses reported seeing both women outside the vehicle at one point, looking around on the ground.

At 1:15 a.m., a northbound Union Pacific train approached the location, traveling around 35 mph. The train engineer later told investigators that he spotted Ammari's dark-colored vehicle in the train's headlight, sounded the horn and applied the brakes.

Coroner's officials said video from the train's front camera recorded the image of a woman standing on the passenger side of a vehicle with her hands stretched in front of her chest.

The locomotive knocked the SUV end-over-end into the women. Sayegh was pronounced dead at the scene. Ammari died about five hours later at Riverside Community Hospital.

The women's families also sued BNSF and the city of Riverside, but those cases were dismissed, according to court records.


 

11 comments


Comment Profile ImageReality Checker
Comment #1 | Tuesday, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:00 pm
Ok, let me get this straight..... They drunk drive thier car at twice the legal limit onto railroad tracks, get hit by a train, and then thier family wants to sue the railroad for the 23 year olds stupidity? Greed bags. Of course it's not the drunk's fault..... no. It's got to be the locomotive engineer didn't know how to drive the massive train! Yea, that's it! This is the most absurd crud I've heard since Nancy Pelosi claimed that Congress under her speakership would be the most open, honest, transparent House of Representatives in history. Geez! Hopefully, the railroad will countersue for attorney fees, and a lot them!!!

Comment Profile Imagematthew
Comment #2 | Tuesday, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:26 pm
drunk . stupid . and they expect a freight train going 35 mph with 86 cars behind it to stop on a dime?? yea . sure . the dreams of people who think that this can happen are usauly living in fanatsy land . if they would have jumped out of the way they would have been alive . guess the alcohol made them stupid . after working in the medical filed and being a emt for the last 10 of them I have seen what the stupid level that alcohol can become of people . this raised the bar folks . over the limit . legaly dead . to bad so sad. the railroad is not at fault nor the train crew . the only ones at fault her are the courts for leting this case go to trial and the lawyers .

Comment Profile ImageNimS
Comment #3 | Wednesday, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:31 pm
Obviously both of these comments are written by Government Drones. Don't talk about these girls like you know them. These girls were loved by their family and they were both honor roll students.

The poor girls car got stuck on the railroads, but accidentally making a u turn. But they had the hazard light flashing, The train crew failed to be alert, and failed to apply the emergency breaks on time. the emergency breaks are made for a reason.

You attack them for drinking? it doesn't say Drunk, it says it was twice the "legal limit" well lets see, a girl weighing 100 pounds would only need 1.5 drinks to reach legal limit. and 2 drinks doesn't make you a drunk. So calm down Cow boy.

These train accidents happens to a lot of people in America that don't even drink. please look it up on Google.

The train crew job is not exactly all exciting and a lot of train engineers are tired, don't pay attention and even fall asleep, and this is just another deadly example of the train crew failure to observe the basic railroad governing operations.

Comment Profile ImageAre you serious Nim?
Comment #4 | Thursday, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:36 am
I worked in one of the buildings right next to the tracks, at this very crossing. I get it, the families are devestated as I saw them there for several weeks after the accident, very sad. But facts are facts, the drunk driver and passenger got of the car which was stuck on the tracks, in the middle of the night, and instead of getting out of the way, far away, she threw up her hands at an 8 million pound train coming at them. Does this sound logical to you? As it appears you know the family or families, you're speaking with emotion and not logic but then they were drunk, enough said. Poor decision on both of their parts cost them the ultimate.

regardless, RIP to both young girls but suing is not the answer, wasting money, dragging this out when it's clear who was at fault.

Comment Profile ImageReality Checker
Comment #5 | Thursday, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:31 pm
Well, lets see how this so called government drone cowboy sees this....let me sum this up for you: driving at twice the legal limit is drunk driving. Period. The drunk driver got her car stuck on the train tracks, gets hit by a train, gets killed. It's her fault. Period. She made the decision to drink and drive, so she is the primary cause of the incident. Any other comparison of vehicles getting stuck is irrelevant. The side at fault always likes to point the finger at everyone else to draw attention away from themselves, and that finger pointing tells you all you need to know. If they truly knew in thier hearts the fault was not with them (drunk girl), then they wouldn't be pointing fingers to begin with. It's the best real way to tell who the fault lays with. Just look who is pointing thier fingers at everyone else ...except themselves. (This is where blaming the train for not stopping in time gets a little stupid in my opinion) Who cares, and what does it matter if thier hazard lights were flashing or not. Like that is supposed to stop a friggin train? It's simply another case of lack of personal responsibility coupled with wanting someone else to pay for your mistakes and greed in my opinion. Don't want to get hit by a train? Don't drink and drive your car onto railroad tracks!!!!
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageReality Checker
Comment #6 | Thursday, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:43 pm
And, being on the honor roll doesn't necessarily mean they were smart, obviously.......

Comment Profile ImageMom of lots
Comment #7 | Monday, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:27 pm
The train company should have all charges dismissed against them.

Comment Profile ImageReality Checker
Comment #8 | Tuesday, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:52 am
Wow, ok. This update really changes things now, I see. Seems now they want to Arm Chair Quarterback this scenario in order to reach into the pockets of the railroad. You can sit around all day and night playing what ifs....or shoulda done this, shoulda done that, and in this case seemingly to be able to magically know what the engineer could see or not see, and even claim to know what the engineer was or should have been thinking. Incredible! It's absurd for someone claiming to be experienced to second guess what happened, or what could have or should have been done to prevent it when they weren't in there!
Analogous example: That's like a truck driver showing up at an accident you are involved in, and on behalf of the family of the other driver involved, telling the CHP "hey, that guy had time to stop, he had the ability to prevent this, he was going too fast, he was this, he was that, this is what YOU SAW, this is what you should have done, when the truck driver was not even there!
What jurist would be inclined to reward the plaintiff in this case? I can't think of one that would, unless they got paid to find the railroad at fault LOL. This is just the most absurd #%^* I've heard in a while.

Comment Profile Imagerip tanya and renee
Comment #9 | Thursday, Mar 21, 2013 at 5:39 pm
tanya was a great person i knew her for a long time. She always worked so hard in school and that night she was working as the mission inn in riverside until 10 pm - she did not go out and party and get drunk!! She just went to enjoy the party for an hour because she had school the next day. People stop talking about what you don't know!! They did get stuck it that mean they have to die the train saw the car from far away - he should of hit the emergency break he did not he was tired! Pray for their family its hard to lose some one you love!

Comment Profile ImageBill Brakeman
Comment #10 | Saturday, Apr 13, 2013 at 10:48 pm
As a former railroad conductor, I'm begging you, with tears in my eyes, please, please, DO NOT think for one moment that a train can stop in time to keep from hitting you. Railroads are granted an exclusive right of way by the federal government and they must operate with the expectation that their right of way is free of obstructions and trespassers. The reason that the flashing lights and crossing gates block the HIGHWAY traffic at a grade crossing instead of blocking the train traffic is because the stopping distance for a train is HUNDREDS of times the stopping distance for a car or truck. When there is a collision between a train and a car, the train wins every time. If your car is stalled on the railroad tracks, GET OUT OF YOUR CAR AND GET AS FAR AWAY AS POSSIBLE.

In this particular case, the car did not "get stuck on the tracks", it got there because it's driver put it there. Yes, grade crossing accidents do happen a lot, because some people just don't learn their lesson when they hear about other people being killed by a train when they were on the railroad tracks. You may think that you're dead right, but you'll still be dead, right?

I'm sure that the hard working crew members of that train are loved by their families too, now they all have to suffer the emotional distress and trauma that was caused by the 2 fools who didn't have enough sense to leave the area when the train approached. They probably have also suffered financially due to lost work and medical expenses, as well has having to appear in court for a frivilous lawsuit. I hope that the crew members are able to recover fully and to return to work. They should sue the families of the 2 women who caused their pain and suffering.

As far as the railroads are concerned, they should persue legal action against the estates of the 2 women who caused the wreck (it wasn't an "accident", it was stupidity) to recover expenses for damage to equipment, loss of operating time, and for legal fees.

Comment Profile ImageBill Brakeman
Comment #11 | Monday, Apr 15, 2013 at 8:54 am
DO NOT think for one moment that a train can stop in time to keep from hitting you. The idea that a train should be able to stop in time to “prevent” striking an object or person that is in the path of the train is a concept promoted by personal injury attorneys for their own enrichment. Keep believing this childish fantasy and ignore reality and you too can throw your life away needlessly so some attorney can have a chance to get richer.

Article Comments are contributed by our readers, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Valley News staff. The name listed as the author for comments cannot be verified; Comment authors are not guaranteed to be who they claim they are.

 

Add your Comment


Name

Images, Formatting, or HTML is not allowed : plain text only. You may post up to 5 website addresses within your comment.
Disclaimer

The Valley News has tightened its policy regarding comments.
While we invite you to contribute your opinions and thoughts, we request that you refrain from using vulgar or obscene words and post only comments that directly pertain to the specific topic of the story or article.
Comments that are derogatory in nature have a high likelihood for editing or non-approval if they carry the possibility of being libelous.
The comment system is not intended as a forum for individuals or groups to air personal grievances against other individuals or groups.
Please, no advertising or trolling.
In posting a comment for consideration, users understand that their posts may be edited as necessary to meet system parameters, or the post may not be approved at all. By submitting a comment, you agree to all the rules and guidelines described here.
Most comments are approved or disregarded within one business day.



RSS FeedFacebookTwitter



Subscribe



Advertisement for Temecula Dining




Most Commented


Reach Local Customers



The Valley News The Valley News
760-723-7319 - 127 West Elder Street, Fallbrook CA 92028
All contents copyright ©2013
About Us
Earthquake Information
Business Listings
Contact Us
Letter to the Editor
Report a website error
Sitemap
Online Digital Edition
RSS Feeds
Login