jose irias vs metro north

8/11/2019 Jose Irias vs Metro North

1/14


2/14

SU ONS CIVILD-CV-1 Rev 2-13

C.GS 51-346,51-347,51-349,51-350, 52-45a,2-48,52-259, PB Sees, 3-1 through 3-21,8-1

STATE OF CONNECTICUTSUPERIOR COURT

wwwjud,ct.govSee page 2 for instructions

ooo

X if amount, legal interest or property in demand, not including interest andcosts is less than 2,500,X if amount, legal interest or property in demand, not including interest and

costs is 2,500 or more,

TO: Any proper officer; BY AUTHORITY OF THSTATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are herebycommanded to make due and legal service ofthis Summons and attached Complaint.

X if claiming other relief in addition to or in lieu of money or damages,

Address of court clerk where writand other papers shall be filed Number, street, town and zip code) Telephone number of clerk with Return Date Must be a Tuesday)eG.s, 51-346, 51-350) area code)

35 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510 203 )503-6800 September 9 ,2 01Month I JaV Yeao Judicial District

OG A

\

At Town in which writ is returnable) e.G.S. 51-346,51-349)

New Haven

Case type code See list on page 2)

o Housing Session Number: Major: V Minor: 1or the P/aintiff(s) please enter the appearance of:ame and address of attorney, law firm or plaintiff if self-represented Number, street, town and zip code) 1Juris number to be entered by attorney ontyinley, Renehan & Dost, LLP, 60 North Main Street, Second Floor, Waterbury, CT 06702 402031elephone number with area code) I ignature of Plaintiff If self-represented)203 ) 596-9030

umber of Plaintiffs: 1 I umber of Defendants: 1 I o Form JD-CV-2 attached for additional partiesParties Name Last, First, Middle Initial) and Address of Each party Number; Street; P,O. Box; Town; State; Zip; Country, if not USA)

First Name: Irias, Jose

Plaintiff Address: 144 Bishop Street, Waterbury, CT 06705

Additional Name:

PlaintiffAddress:

First Name:

DefendantAddress:

Additional Name: Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company

Defendant Address: clo Ryan, Ryan & Deluca ,lP

707 Summer Street, Stamford, CT 06901

Additional Name:

DefendantAddress:

Additional Name:

DefendantAddress:

otice to Each Defendant

YOU ARE BEING SUED, This paper is a Summons in a lawsuit. The complaint attached to these papers states the claims that each plaintiff is makingagainst you in this lawsuit.To be notified of further proceedings, you or your attorney must file a form called an Appearance with the clerk of the above-named Court at the aboveCourt address on or before the second day after the above Return Date. The Return Date is not a hearing date. You do not have to come to court on theReturn Date unless you receive a separate notice telling you to come to court.

P-

P-

0-

0-

0-0

0-0

If you or your attorney do not file a written Appearance form on time, a judgment may be entered against you by default. The Appearance form may beobtained at the Court address above or at www.jud.ct,gov under Court Forms,If you believe that you have insurance that may cover the claim that is being made against you in this lawsuit, you should immediately contact yourinsurance representative. Other action you may ha ve to take is described in the Connecticut Practice Book which may be found in a superior court lawlibrary or on-line at www.jud.ct.gov under Court Rules,If you have questions about the Summons and Complaint. you should talk to an attorney quickly. T he Clerk of Court is not allowed to give advice onIe al uestions,

gned Sign n d X proper box)

/ - ; - / , ; ? ? ' ...... - - -

this Su mons is signed by a Clerk:

) Commissioner of theSuperior CourtASSistant Clerk

Name of Person Signing at Left

Amita S, Patel, Esq.

The signing has been done so that the Plaintiff(s) will not be denied access to the courts,It is the responsibility of the Plaintiff(s) to see that service is made in the manner provided by law,The Clerk is not permitted to give any legal advice in connection with any lawsuit.The Clerk signing this Summons at the request of the Plaintiff(s) is not responsible in any way for any errors orin the Summons, any allegations contained in the Complaint, or the service of the Summons or Complain,t.

ertify I have read and Signed Self-Represented Plaintiff)derstand the above:me and address of person recognized to prosecute in the amount of 5250

tte Murtishi, TRD, 60 North Main Street, Second Floor, Waterbury, CT 06702

) Commissioner of the DateSuperior Court 08/15/2014Assistant Clerk

(Page 1 of 2)

Date signed

08/15/2014- For Court Use Only

Docket Number

Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 2 of 14


3/14

RETURN DATE: SEPTEMBER 9 2014 SUPERIOR COURT

JOSEIRIAS J.D. OF NEW HAVEN

V.AT NEW HAVEN

METRO-NORTH COMMUTERRAILROAD COMPANY AUGUST 15, 2014

COMPLAINT

FIRST COUNT NEGLIGENCE COMMON CARRIER

1. The plaintiff, Jose lrias, is a resident of the state of Connecticut.

2. The defendant, Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company ( Metro North ) is a foreign

corporation doing business in the State of Connecticut, with a place of business in Connecticut.

3. At all times relevant hereto, Metro-North was a common carrier engaged in the business of

interstate commerce and which operated a railroad between New York City, New York and New

Haven, Connecticut.

4. On May 17, 2013, Metro-North was in possession and control of a railroad track, related signals

and track circuitry located at milepost 53.3 in Bridgeport, Connecticut, including Track 4.

5. At all times relevant hereto, Metro-North was responsible for the inspection, maintenance, repair

and condition of the tracks, track beds, signals and track circuitry in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

6. On May 17 2013 at approximately 6:00PM, Metro-North was in possession and control of

Metro-North Railroad passenger train number 1548 ( Train 1548 ), traveling eastbound from



4/14

7. New York Grand Central Station to New Haven Union Station n the vicinity of Bridgeport,

Connecticut.

8. At the same time and place, Metro-North was in possession and control of Metro-North Railroad

passenger train number 58 ( Train 58 ), traveling westbound from New Haven Union

Station to New York Grand Central Station in the vicinity of Bridgeport, Connecticut.

9. t the same time and place, plaintiff Jose Irias was a passenger invitee of the defendant Metro

North traveling on Train 1548, where he was seated facing westbound.

10. Prior to 6:00PM on May 17, 2013, Metro-North inspectors discovered that two compromise joint

bars on Track 4, near milepost 53.3 were cracked and/or had broken.

11. The compromise joint bars were replaced, however, problems again emerged on May 15, 2013 -

two days before the incident on May 17, 2013. Metro-North inspectors reported a pumping

condition, which meant that the ties and rails were moving up and down under the weight of

trains, and also ina:dequate ballast support.

12. The inspection also discovered an insulated rail joint with inadequate supporting ballast and

indications of vertical movement of the track system under load at catenary number 734 on Track

4, near milepost 53.3.

13. On May 17, 2013 at approximately 6:00PM, Train 1548 derailed suddenly and without warning

near milepost 53.3.

14 Upon information and belief, Train 1548 was traveling at approximately seventy (70) miles per

hour when it derailed.

Page 2 of 11



5/14

15. Train 1548 came to rest so as to block the adjacent westbound track.

16. Approximately twenty 20) seconds to one minute later, Train 1581 struck Train 1548, causing

further damage.

17. At all times relevant hereto, Metro-North had a deficient safety culture that prioritized on-time

performance, while sacrificing the safety and protection o riders and employees.

18. The aforesaid derailment and collision were caused by the negligence o the defendant Metro

North in one or more o the following ways:

a On or about April 4, 2013, Metro-North and/or its agents or employees replaced the two

compromise joint bars at the point o derailment in a manner that did not comply with its

own standards or federal standards, including the failure to perform a thermite weld;

b At the time o the Apri14, 2013 repair, Metro-North and/or its agents or employees did

not employ sufficient welding teams to facilitate the thermite weld as described above;

c. Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to properly mate two mismatched rails

during the April 4, 2013 repair;

d Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to timely repair the broken

compromise joint bars at catenary number 734 on Track 4 near milepost 53.3, which it

and/or its employees or agents had discovered on May 15, 2013;

e Metro-North and/or its employees or agents negligently concluding during the May 15,

2013 inspection that the repair was not urgently required;

f Metro-North and/or its employees or agents had failed to provide its inspection crews

with sufficient equipment to make timely repairs, including the crew that detected the

broken compromise joint bars on May 15,2013;

Page 3 o 11



6/14

g. Metro -Nor th and/or its employees or agents failed to respond to any maintenance

requests in a timely manner, leading to a maintenance backlog that was years behind

schedule;

h Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to keep the tracks that were under its

possession or control in a good state of repair;

i. Metro -Nor th andlor its employees or agents failed to conduct a five-year cycle of

maintenance on Track 4 since 2005;

j Metro-North and/or its employees failed to properly repair, support, maintain and/or

inspect Track 4;

k Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to close and/or remove Track 4 from

service; and

I Metro-Nor th failed to adequately train its track inspectors.

19. The defendant k new or should have known of the deficient nature of the Track because it had

performed an inspection of the same section on May 15, 2013, during which the deficiency was

noted.

20. The defendant knew or should have known of the deficient nature of the Track because it

performed inspections of the Track three times per week.

21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant as aforesaid,

the plaintiff, Jose lrias, sustained a lumbar sprain/strain, lumbar segmental joint dysfunction, a

sacroiliac sprain/strain, a cervical sprain/strain, cervical segmental dysfunction,

myofascitis/muscle spasm, a thoracic sprain/strain, thoracic segmental dysfunction, and

symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The plaintiff further suffers from headaches,

Page 4 of



7/14

nightmares, flashbacks, inability to sleep and an inability to concentrate. To treat these injuries

and their concomitant symptoms of pain, weakness, spasm, stiffness and restricted mobility the

plaintiff required a lengthy course of chiropractic treatment, medication, an injection and

radiological studies. The injuries and damages to the Plaintiff s lumbar spine are permanent in

nature and will require future medical treatment. In addition the Plaintiff has suffered and will

continue to suffer great physical and emotional pain, distress, anxiety and discomfort and has

been and will in the future be unable to participate in many of the activities in which he engaged

prior to said accident

22. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant as aforesaid, the

plaintiff, Jose Irias, was forced to incur substantial sums of money for the medical care,

services, treatment and medications necessitated by his condition.

23. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant as aforesaid, the

plaintiff, Jose lrias, was forced to miss several weeks from the duties of his employment

and has suffered a loss of earnings.

SECOND COUNT RECKLESSNESS

1 The allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 16 of the First Count are incorporated by reference and

hereby made Paragraphs 1 through 16 of this Second Count.

17. The aforesaid derailment and collision were caused by the recklessness of the defendant Metro-

North in one or more of the following ways:

Page 5 of 11



8/14

a On or about April 4, 2013, Metro-North and/or its agents or employees replaced the two

compromise joint bars at the point o derailment in a manner that did not comply with its

own standards or federal standards, including the failure to perform a thermite weld;

b At the time o the April 4, 2013 repair, Metro-North and/or its agents or employees did

not employ sufficient welding teams to facilitate the thermite weld as described above;

c. Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to properly mate two mismatched rails

during the April 4, 2013 repair;

d Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to timeJy repair the broken

compromise joint bars at catenary number 734 on Track 4 near milepost 53.3, which it

and/or its employees or agents had discovered on May 15,2013;

e Metro-North and/or its employees or agents negligently concluding during the May 15,

2013 inspection that the repair was not urgently required;

f Metro-North and/or its employees or agents had failed to provide its inspection crews

with sufficient equipment to make timely repairs, including the crew that detected the

broken compromise joint bars on May 15, 2013;

g Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to respond to any maintenance

requests in a timely manner, leading to a maintenance backlog that was years behind

schedule;

h Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to keep the tracks that were under its

possession or control in a good state o repair;

i Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to conduct a five-year cycle o

maintenance on Track 4 since 2005;

Page 6 o 11



9/14

j. Metro-North and/or its employees failed to properly repair, support, maintain and/or

inspect Track 4;

k Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to close and/or remove Track 4 from

service; and

1 Metro-North failed to adequately train its track inspectors.

18 The defendant knew or should have known of the deficient nature of the Track because t had

performed an inspection of the same section on May 15, 2013, during which the deficiency was

noted.

19. The defendant knew or should have known of the deficient nature of the Track because t

performed inspections of the Track three times per week.

20 As a direct and proximate result of the recklessness of the defendant as aforesaid, the plaintiff,

Jose Irias, sustained a lumbar sprain/strain, lumbar segmental joint dysfunction, a sacroiliac

sprain/strain, a cervical sprain/strain, cervical segmental dysfunction, myofascitis/muscle spasm,

a thoracic sprain/strain, thoracic segmental dysfunction, symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress

Disorder. The plaintiff further suffers from headaches, nightmares, flashbacks, inability to sleep

and an inability to concentrate. To treat these injuries and their concomitant symptoms of pain,

weakness, spasm, stiffness and restricted mobility the plaintiff required a lengthy course of

chiropractic treatment, medication, an injection and radiological studies. The injuries and

damages to the Plaintiff s lumbar spine are permanent in nature and will require future medical

treatment. In addition the Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer great physical and

emotional pain, distress, anxiety and discomfort and has been and will in the future be unable to

participate in many of the activities in which he engaged prior to said accident.Page 7 of 11



10/14

21. As a further resulto

the recklessnesso

the defendant as aforesaid the plaintiff Jose

Irias was forced to incur substantial sums o money for the medical care services

treatment and medications necessitated by his condition.

22. As a further result o the recklessness o the defendant as aforesaid the plaintiff Jose

Irias was forced to miss several weeks from the duties o his employment and has

suffered a loss o earnings.

THIRD COUNT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

1 The allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 16 o the First Count are incorporated by reference and

hereby made Paragraphs 1 through 16 o this Third Count.

17. Upon information and belief Metro-North breached its duties under Federal Law y allowing the

train on which the plaintiff was riding to pass over defective rails in violation o C.F.R.

213.113 by permitting a rail end mismatch in violation o 49 C.F.R. 213.115 and by not

ensuring that the subject rail and rail joints were structurally sound in violation o 49 C.F.R.

213.121.

18 Metro-North had recently repaired railroad track equipment including damaged joint

bars at or near the May 17 2013 incident site roughly two days prior to the incident and

knew or should have known that a dangerous condition existed and permitted its trains to

pass over these defective tracks anyway;

19 Metro-North set forth a policy for maintenance regarding the replacement o railroad ties

and failed to comply with said policy;

Page 8 o 11



11/14

20. Metro-North negligently, recklessly, or intentionally misrepresented to the public,

including the plaintiff, Jose Irias, that t complied and complies with the aforementioned

sections of the Code of Federal Regulations and that t operates its trains and track system

in the safest possible manner, thereby inducing passengers to travel on the train and

pay fares. Had passengers, including the plaintiff, Jose Irias, been aware of breaches of

duty by Metro-North they would not have purchased tickets and boarded the train that

derailed on May 17,2013.

21 As a result of the unfair and deceptive acts and practices of the defendant, Metro-North,

the plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer ascertainable economic loss, including

the purchase price of his ticket, medical expenses, lost wages, earning capacity and non

economic damages as well.

22. By engaging in the aforesaid conduct n the course of its trade or business, Metro-North

committed one or more violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.O.s.

42-110a, et seq

23. By engaging in the aforesaid conduct, the defendant, Metro-North, caused substantial

injury and economic harm to the plaintiff, Jose Irias.

Page 9 of 11



12/14

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims:a Fair, just and reasonable damages;b. Attorney's fees pursuant to CUTPA, C.O.S. 42-110a, et seqc uch other and further relief as law and equity may provide.

THE PLAINTIFF,JOSEIRIAS

B Y ~ c v C dTinley, Renehan Dost, LLP60 North Main Street, Second FloorWaterbury, CT 06702Tel: (203) 596-9030Fax: (203) 596-9036Juris No.: 402031

Page 1 of 11



13/14

RETURN DATE: SEPTEMBER 9 2014

JOSEIRIAS

V

METRO-NORTH COMMUTERRAILROAD COMPANY

SUPERIOR COURTJ.D. OF NEW HAVEN

AT NEW HAVEN

AUGUST 15, 2014

MOUNT IN ONTROVERSY

The amount in demand, exclusive of interest and costs, is in excess of FIFTEEN

THOUSAND DOLLARS ( 15,000.00).

THE PLAINTIFF,JOSE IRIAS

B Y ~ ~mita:Patel, Esq

Tinley, Renehan Dost, LLP60 North Main Street, Second FloorWaterbury, CT 06702

Tel: (203) 596-9030Fax: (203) 596-9036Juris No.: 402031

Page 11 of 11



14/14

o m m e r c i lRecording Division

Business Inquiry

Business Details

Business Name: METRO-NORTH COMMUTERRAILROAD COMPANY

Business 10: 0535493

Business Address: 50 UNION AVE. NEW HAVENCT 06519

Mailing Address: 347 MADISON AVE. NEWYORK NY 10017

Date Inc/Registration: Apr 26 1996

Commence BusinessDate: Jan 01 1983

Principals Details

NamelTitle Business Address

HON. PETER S. 347 MADISON AVE. NEWKALIKOW CHAIRMAN YORK NY 10017

PETER A. CANNITOPRESIDENT

RICHARD K.BERNARD VICEPRESIDENT

Agent Summary

347 MADISON AVE. NEWYORK NY 10017

347 MADISON AVE. NEWYORK NY. 10017

Agent Name RYAN RYAN DELUCA LLP

http://www.concord sots.ct.gov/CONCORDlPubliclnquiry?eid=97

HOME HELP

Citizenship/State Inc: Foreign/NY

Last Report Filed Year: 2006

Business Type: Non-Stock

Business Status: Active

Residence Address

1001 5TH AVENUE PENTHOUSE B NEW YORKNY 10028

8 CARUSO PLACE ARMONK NY 10504

100 REVOLUTIONAY ROAD SCARBOROUGH. NY.10510

Agent Business 707 SUMMER STREET STAMFORD CT 06901Address

Agent Residence NONEAddress

IView FilingHistory I IView Name History


jose irias vs metro north

Documents