Family of Plum locomotive engineer who died on job settles with railroad
The family of a locomotive engineer killed in a train collision in North Versailles apparently has settled its federal lawsuit against Union Railroad Co., according to court documents filed on Wednesday.
Lawyers for the company and Lydia Monheim, the widow of Andrew Monheim, 54, of Plum, filed a joint motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The motion doesn't provide any details.
Michael Olley, Monheim's attorney, said the resolution of the case is confidential and declined further comment. Stephen Hall, the lawyer for the U.S. Steel Corp. subsidiary, couldn't be reached.
Andrew Monheim was thrown from a northbound train hauling empty rail cars when it collided with a southbound train carrying iron ore pellets to U.S. Steel's Edgar Thomson plant on March 16, 2010. He was buried beneath the pellets that spilled in the collision.
The lawsuit claimed the railroad's dispatcher was negligent in monitoring the signal system and failed to tell Monheim that his train was on a collision course. It claimed the company lacked the resources to properly respond to the collision but waited an hour before asking local emergency agencies for help.
Union Railroad denied those allegations in its response to the lawsuit.
Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.