8/11/2019 Jose Irias vs Metro North
1/14
8/11/2019 Jose Irias vs Metro North
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
8/11/2019 Jose Irias vs Metro North
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
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 3 of 14
8/11/2019 Jose Irias vs Metro North
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
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 4 of 14
8/11/2019 Jose Irias vs Metro North
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
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 5 of 14
8/11/2019 Jose Irias vs Metro North
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
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 6 of 14
8/11/2019 Jose Irias vs Metro North
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
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 7 of 14
8/11/2019 Jose Irias vs Metro North
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
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 8 of 14
8/11/2019 Jose Irias vs Metro North
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
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 9 of 14
8/11/2019 Jose Irias vs Metro North
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
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 10 of 14
8/11/2019 Jose Irias vs Metro North
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
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 11 of 14
8/11/2019 Jose Irias vs Metro North
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
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 12 of 14
8/11/2019 Jose Irias vs Metro North
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
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 13 of 14
8/11/2019 Jose Irias vs Metro North
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
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 14 of 14
Top Related