Commuter Sues TfL Over "Rammed Platforms"

[duncanp]

A commuter who was dragged under a tube train after falling from an overcrowded platform at Oxford Circus is suing TfL over the injuries he received.

If he were to succeed, no doubt there would be more frequent station closures (due to "overcorwding") as a result, which would then result in more complaints, and even more overcrowding in those parts of the system that were still open.

I don't know quite what he, or his solicitors, expect TfL to do.

Commuter dragged under Tube train sues TfL over ‘rammed’ platforms

David Garcia Thomas says ‘overcrowded and congested’ Oxford Circus Underground station contributed to accident that left him badly injured

www.telegraph.co.uk

Commuter dragged under Tube train sues TfL over ‘rammed’ platforms​

David Garcia Thomas says ‘overcrowded and congested’ Oxford Circus Underground station contributed to accident that left him badly injured

Transport for London (TfL) has been taken to court over its "rammed" platforms by a commuter dragged under a Tube train.

David Garcia Thomas, a former languages teacher turned IT executive, says he fell under an oncoming Tube train and was seriously injured due to overcrowding on a "rammed" London Underground platform.

The 28-year-old suffered multiple injuries, including a fractured spine and serious leg injuries, after being dragged along for some distance in front of fellow travellers.

He is now suing TfL for £220,000, claiming it "failed to identify … all the risks to the safety of customers” caused by “overcrowded and congested platforms".

Mr Garcia Thomas, of Ashdown Way, Balham, also said the platform should have had a "platform edge device to prevent falls from the platform" and stop accidents like his taking place.

'Platform was extremely crowded'​

Documents lodged with London's High Court by his lawyers state that Mr Thomas was working for IT company Nominet at its Paddington office on Nov 20 2019 when the accident happened.

"At or just after 5pm on Nov 20 2019, the claimant had finished work in his office in Paddington and commenced his usual journey home on the London Underground," they say.



"He travelled from Paddington to Oxford Circus on the Bakerloo Line. At Oxford Circus, he crossed to the opposite platform for the southbound Victoria Line.

"The platform was extremely crowded. The claimant stood amongst other people waiting for a train. The first train to arrive was too full for the claimant to get on. Once people in front of him had got on the first train, the claimant moved closer to the edge of the platform and waited for the next train.

"He was hot and nauseous and began to feel dizzy and lightheaded. He was concerned that he might faint so he turned around, intending to move further away from the platform edge.

"However, the platform was so crowded and congested that he was unable to move from his position. Had he been able to, the claimant would have made his way to a safer area away from the platform edge. He was unable to do so because of the overcrowding and congestion on the platform.

"The claimant has no recollection of what happened next.

"CCTV footage, witness accounts and subsequent investigations confirm that the claimant suffered a medical episode, causing him to collapse and fall from the platform into the path of an oncoming train.

"The claimant was struck by the train and became trapped between the train and the platform. He was carried by the train some distance down the platform. He was removed by emergency services and taken to hospital."

Safety measures 'insufficient'​

His lawyers go on to claim that TfL had not undertaken an adequate risk assessment, failed to properly identify the risks caused by overcrowded platforms and did not do enough to manage or prevent overcrowding.

They also said the company failed to provide good enough training in how to deal with overcrowding and failed to provide a "platform edge device" to prevent falls onto the tracks.

They also claim that safety measures in place - which included telling platform staff to direct customers to "stand back from the platform edge behind the yellow line" - were "insufficient" to ensure the "reasonable safety of customers" on an "overcrowded" platform.

The documents say Mr Garcia Thomas suffered a head injury, chest injury, cervical spine fracture and a fractured pelvis. His legs were also seriously injured by being ground between the train and the platform edge.

He needed seven operations and spent four months on crutches afterwards, his lawyers add.

A TfL spokesman said: "Safety is our number one priority and we are sorry that Mr Garcia Thomas was injured at Oxford Circus station. We are aware of his claim and will be responding to the court in due course."

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect heavily reduced commuting since 2019 when this occurred has probably resolved the issue. Platform edge doors are of course the long term resolution.

 

[rebmcr]

I don't know quite what he, or his solicitors, expect TfL to do.

Was about to say PEDs but Bletchleyite has beaten me to it.

 

[duncanp]

Platform edge doors would help, but it would take time and money to retrofit all tube stations, or even just the busiest stations in Zone 1.

Then you would have the problem of what to do if/when the doors malfunction.

In the meantime, you would have to close stations for overcrowding more frequently, or make stations such as Oxford Circus entry only or exit only at certain times, which would solve one problem and create another.

 

[zwk500]

I don't know quite what he, or his solicitors, expect TfL to do.

Pay him a large amount of money to go away, sadly.

Like the bloke who sued Oxford University for not giving him a high enough degree (or passing him at all?). They hope the calculation is that payoff < Lawyers, even if you win the case.

PEDs is the only technical solution, but it can't be done sensibly for all underground stations on the LUL network. However I do think some stations should be retrofit in the very busiest locations, like major terminals and interchanges. The PEDs on the jubilee line have worked fine.

 

[computerSaysNo]

I really don't see why the vast majority of Tube stations haven't already been fitted with Platform Edge Doors ("PEDs"), except that TfL don't have or want to spend the money. All Tube lines* already have fixed-length trains which always stop in the same position in the platform every time, so it's not like major changes to rolling stock would be needed.

*Except for the sections where the Circle, H&C, and Met all share platforms. I can't see it being beyond engineers to come up with a safe solution for that though.

 

[the sniper]

Pay him a large amount of money to go away, sadly.

The amount they're going for doesn't seem that extortionate, so I imagine this is what they're after.

 

[zwk500]

The amount they're going for doesn't seem that extortionate, so I imagine this is what they're after.

It's a depressing import from the USA, but if the person suing asks for more than £1 or doesn't say they're going to give the money to charity (or similar), all they're after is the payout. His lawyers probably think TfL will settle for around 150k, so 220k is a starting bet.
If he actually wanted the PEDs to be fitted, he wouldn't be asking for £200k that could be used to fund them.

 

[Adlington]

If he actually wanted the PEDs to be fitted, he wouldn't be asking for £200k that could be used to fund them.

How many PED's can you fit for £200k ?

 

[duncanp]

It's a depressing import from the USA, but if the person suing asks for more than £1 or doesn't say they're going to give the money to charity (or similar), all they're after is the payout. His lawyers probably think TfL will settle for around 150k, so 220k is a starting bet.
If he actually wanted the PEDs to be fitted, he wouldn't be asking for £200k that could be used to fund them.

The lawyers are hoping that TfL are going to settle out of court.

If it were to go to court, one of the considerations the judge would have to make is whether a judgement in favour of the claimant would set a precedent and lead to a flood of similar claims, thus using up TfL funds that could otherwise be spent on something more useful like, er, installing platform edge doors.

 

[Adlington]

whether a judgement in favour of the claimant would set a precedent and lead to a flood of similar claims

How frequent are such incidents? Is it really a flood?

 

[DanNCL]

Apart from shutting access to the platform earlier, there's realistically nothing that TFL could have done to prevent this.

I'd be amazed if a judge accepted the "platform edge device" argument. There's no legal requirement to have them, nor are they practical to install at many locations on the tube. There is no precedent for such an installation on a platform with a hump, which would include the southbound Victoria Line platform at Oxford Circus where this incident happened.

End of the day, it's the passengers responsibility to ensure they're a safe distance from the platform edge. If he stood the wrong side of the yellow line, which CCTV would show if he did, he likely has no argument here. If he was stood behind the yellow line however then there might be a case for TFL to answer. If you stand too close to the kerb on a road and get injured you wouldn't sue the local authority or Highways England for not keeping you far enough away from the kerb, why should it be any different on the railway?

 

[Falcon1200]

I really don't see why the vast majority of Tube stations haven't already been fitted with Platform Edge Doors ("PEDs")

Because it would cost millions upon millions of pounds to achieve, money which has to come from somewhere. It sound callous to put a price on a person's life, but that is exactly what happens elsewhere, on road safety for example.

 

[zwk500]

Apart from shutting access to the platform earlier, there's realistically nothing that TFL could have done to prevent this.

Agree

I'd be amazed if a judge accepted the "platform edge device" argument. There's no legal requirement to have them, nor are they practical to install at many locations on the tube. There is no precedent for such an installation on a platform with a hump, which would include the southbound Victoria Line platform at Oxford Circus where this incident happened.

I wouldn't be surprised if the judge noted that PEDs would have prevented the incident, or made a recommendation that TfL investigate fitting them, but I don't think there's any legal power to compel TfL to do so.

End of the day, it's the passengers responsibility to ensure they're a safe distance from the platform edge. If he stood the wrong side of the yellow line, which CCTV would show if he did, he likely has no argument here. If he was stood behind the yellow line however then there might be a case for TFL to answer. If you stand too close to the kerb on a road and get injured you wouldn't sue the local authority or Highways England for not keeping you far enough away from the kerb, why should it be any different on the railway?

If the platform was allowed to get overcrowded and forced him over the yellow line, that would be a failure of TfL to manage the station appropriately. 1 person cannot hold back a crowd as it piles in behind you.

 

[SynthD]

Has he given any indication of wanting money or a court order?

 

[zwk500]

Has he given any indication of wanting money or a court order?

He's suing for £220,000 according to the article.

 

[Busaholic]

Pay him a large amount of money to go away, sadly.

Like the bloke who sued Oxford University for not giving him a high enough degree (or passing him at all?). They hope the calculation is that payoff < Lawyers, even if you win the case.

PEDs is the only technical solution, but it can't be done sensibly for all underground stations on the LUL network. However I do think some stations should be retrofit in the very busiest locations, like major terminals and interchanges. The PEDs on the jubilee line have worked fine.

Given the derisory amounts so far obtained by the victims (or families thereof) of the Croydon high speed tram derailment accident I very much doubt that a huge pay day is in the calculation. Only the rich can afford to take their 'disputes' to the courts now, including those who are not even citizens of the U.K., like Middle Eastern royalty and Russian oligarchs, although there may have been a temporary blip for some of the latter.

As a matter of public interest, it might be good to establish whether TfL could be said to have some duty in law to ensure as far as possible that stations, and particularly their platforms, do not get dangerously overcrowded, but given how the Hillsborough disaster aftermath finally ended I don't have any faith in anything meaningful being achieved.

 

[zwk500]

Given the derisory amounts so far obtained by the victims (or families thereof) of the Croydon high speed tram derailment accident I very much doubt that a huge pay day is in the calculation. Only the rich can afford to take their 'disputes' to the courts now, including those who are not even citizens of the U.K., like Middle Eastern royalty and Russian oligarchs, although there may have been a temporary blip for some of the latter.

I make no claim to his chances of success, but his lawyers will certainly be making that calculation. Of course, the lawyers can be wrong. You don't sue for £220k if you're intending to prove a point. You want a payout.

As a matter of public interest, it might be good to establish whether TfL could be said to have some duty in law to ensure as far as possible that stations, and particularly their platforms, do not get dangerously overcrowded, but given how the Hillsborough disaster aftermath finally ended I don't have any faith in anything meaningful being achieved.

TfL's duty in law to manage crowding on it's stations is well documented and understood. To try and compare this case to Hillsborough before it's even got to court is quite wrong, and very offensive to all that happened there.

 

[computerSaysNo]

I really don't see why the vast majority of Tube stations haven't already been fitted with Platform Edge Doors ("PEDs"), except that TfL don't have or want to spend the money. All Tube lines* already have fixed-length trains which always stop in the same position in the platform every time, so it's not like major changes to rolling stock would be needed.

*Except for the sections where the Circle, H&C, and Met all share platforms. I can't see it being beyond engineers to come up with a safe solution for that though.

Because it would cost millions upon millions of pounds to achieve, money which has to come from somewhere. It sound callous to put a price on a person's life, but that is exactly what happens elsewhere, on road safety for example.

Literally the next sentence of my post specified "except for money".

 

[zwk500]

Literally the next sentence of my post specified "except for money".

There are engineering challenges as well - PEDs need platforms to be level and straight. These are fixable, of course, but for a price.

 

[mrmartin]

Don't agree about the PED "failure" (as people have pointed out it would be incredibly expensive to fit them everywhere), but I do think he has a genuine case if it turns out TfL did mismanage the overcrowding situation (not saying they did).

These lawsuits are can be a good thing in 3 ways:

1) the person who was badly hurt gets some compensation for lost earnings, potential medical bills, etc

2) it gives a financial incentive to fix problems which are deadly

3) and perhaps most importantly, a lot of internal documents will come out in discovery in the case. There may be emails etc internally showing that TfL were systematically aware of the danger but didn't do anything about it for various reasons. This can lead to significantly enhanced processes and procedures which would never come to light otherwise.


A good example of this is the hot coffee saga with McDonald's, which was made in the press to look ridiculous, but it turned out McDonald's actually knew the coffee was way too hot for operational reasons and loads of people were getting scalded badly. There was a good documentary about this which changed my view entirely on these kind of lawsuits.

 

[Basil Jet]

I really don't see why the vast majority of Tube stations haven't already been fitted with Platform Edge Doors ("PEDs"), except that TfL don't have or want to spend the money. All Tube lines* already have fixed-length trains which always stop in the same position in the platform every time, so it's not like major changes to rolling stock would be needed.

*Except for the sections where the Circle, H&C, and Met all share platforms. I can't see it being beyond engineers to come up with a safe solution for that though.

Aren't the doors in an s7 in the same place as most of the doors in an s8? More of a problem would be stations like Ealing Common, Rayners Lane and Kensal Green.

 

[Falcon1200]

Literally the next sentence of my post specified "except for money".

Indeed, but you also said 'I really don't see why the vast majority of Tube stations haven't already been fitted with Platform Edge Doors' and
'I can't see it being beyond engineers to come up with a safe solution.....'. Not having the money overrides anything else!

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are engineering challenges as well - PEDs need platforms to be level and straight. These are fixable, of course, but for a price.

There are other options than PEDs which can work on curved platforms, e.g. partial fencing, which has the secondary benefit of managing where people wait for trains and so more likely to make space for others to alight first.

 

[ainsworth74]

A good example of this is the hot coffee saga with McDonald's, which was made in the press to look ridiculous, but it turned out McDonald's actually knew the coffee was way too hot for operational reasons and loads of people were getting scalded badly. There was a good documentary about this which changed my view entirely on these kind of lawsuits.

Yes it's a shame that that case gets so pilloried by the media and now society (though I think it is starting to get rehabilitated!). It was quite a shocking case. Especially considering McDonald's only got sued because they wouldn't cover the claimants reasonable (in US terms!) medical expenses and some loss of earnings for her daughter (who had to provide care during her convalescence). She asked for $20,000, McDonald's offered $800 and off it went to court and ended up costing them $640,000 once they lost the case. Quite apart from the fact that they knew that they were serving coffee at a temperature so high that it was regularly causing scolds amongst customers, far more so than at other establishments!

So in this case whilst I am somewhat suspect I wouldn't just blithely dismiss this as a frivolous case with no merit. From the injuries sustained and considering the amount of treatment required I would presume that the claimant has almost certainly suffered some loss of earnings and may well have suffered loss of function so £220,000 may well not be an unreasonable sum of money to compensate for those losses. It may well be that LU were negligent in how they handled the situation. I've certainly be at Tube stations where the barriers have been closed to allow platforms below to clear, why wasn't that done here? Could be good reasons for it, could be that there weren't? I wonder if LU's risk assessments were up to date and being followed? If not, why not? Have LU actually considered PEDs at some stations where perhaps crowding is often and severe enough that even though its expensive it might be a good idea?

It may well be that it goes to court and gets chucked out on its backside because there is no case for LU to answer (which is what I suspect will happen) as they did everything by the book. But I would hesitate to just assume that this is ambulance chasing, US lawyer style, chicanery at its worst...

 

[stuu]

There are engineering challenges as well - PEDs need platforms to be level and straight. These are fixable, of course, but for a price.

No they don't. There are multiple stations in Paris with curved platforms which have been retrofitted with PSDs. Even TCR on the EL has curved platforms. The problem is entirely a financial one, not an engineering one. I suspect it will have to happen sooner or later

 

[357]

It needs to be noted that most tube stations are ventilated by the tube trains pushing air through the tunnel. Any PED program would also need to fit new ventilation systems to the stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It needs to be noted that most tube stations are ventilated by the tube trains pushing air through the tunnel. Any PED program would also need to fit new ventilation systems to the stations.

Or go with low height PEDs, which keep the station open but prevent people falling on the track.

 

[Dstock7080]

It needs to be noted that most tube stations are ventilated by the tube trains pushing air through the tunnel. Any PED program would also need to fit new ventilation systems to the stations.

Then use the shoulder height ones now prevalent in Paris

 

[Mojo]

As a matter of public interest, it might be good to establish whether TfL could be said to have some duty in law to ensure as far as possible that stations, and particularly their platforms, do not get dangerously overcrowded, but given how the Hillsborough disaster aftermath finally ended I don't have any faith in anything meaningful being achieved.

London Undeground of course does have responsibility to ensure that the stations are managed effectively. In this instance the case was widely reported upon in the media at the time, and the incident was not deemed to be connected to crowding at the station.