During hearings at the Evry Criminal Court on Wednesday and Thursday, a labor sociologist notably pointed out the “trivialization of the risk” by the SNCF.
by
The derailment of the intercity train 3657 Paris-Limoges, at the speed of 137 km/h, on July 12, 2013, at the Brétigny-sur-Orge station (Essonne), could he have been avoided if he n ‘Had there were no flaws in monitoring the railroad and shortcomings during maintenance operations? This question was at the center of the debates on Wednesday 11 and Thursday, May 12, at the Evry Criminal Court, during the disaster trial which cost the lives of seven people and made several hundred injured.
If the legal expertise concluded that the reversal of a metal part, a “hatching”, is at the origin of the accident, the Court looked at the last surveillance tour carried out, eight days Before the derailment, by a railway worker. This July 4, 2013, this proximity leader not noted any anomaly by going on foot, and alone, the number 1 route in the Brétigny-sur-Orge sector.
Only natural person to appear in Evry for “manslaughter and involuntary injuries”, like the SNCF and SNCF Réseau (ex-Réseau Ferré de France), the 33-year-old is prosecuted for N ‘ not having “noted the bolts defects” nor detected “the damage” during this tour, while the section concerned had “however been the subject of previous alerts”.
an inspection carried out by only one person
In the referral order before the criminal court, the instructing magistrates observe that the proximity manager could not “ensure the verification of complex ways devices while monitoring particularly dense rail traffic at this place”.
At the bar, the defendant explains that the “goal” of this tour was to “visually inspect” “the way and the surroundings”. “I had looked at the display panels and I knew when the trains were going to pass that day,” he says, everything defending himself to have neglected the “technical aspects” during this inspection.
To justify the absence of an “advertiser”, namely an agent supposed to watch for the arrival of the trains, during this tour of July 4, 2013, the thirties underlines that he was trained to “assure” his own safety in this context.
While a myriad of national regulations are in force and authorize proximity leaders to carry out alone tours, he claims to ignore the existence of a local “repository” imposing the presence of a colleague during a inspection. “I never said to myself that I was going to derogate from this rule, this standard that I do not know,” said the ex-proximity leader, who faces a maximum sentence of three years’ imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros.
You have 41.01% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.