That equates to almost $1m for every individual who was on board, which seems a touch excessive for a freak accident apparently caused by a combination of human error and a train driver sending text messages. Such is life, in a country where litigation is the national sport.

The wider tragedy, however, concerns the effect of the forthcoming legal bonanza on the future of Southern California's public transport system, which until recently had been experiencing a rare surge in popularity, thanks to America's historically-high petrol prices.

Despite every scrap of evidence to the contrary, including the daily "fender benders" that snarl up LA's streets and freeways, plenty of locals (whose hysteria is easily-stoked) will come to the view that their smog-belching SUVs represent a safer form of transit than public transport.

All of which represents terrible news for supporters of California's proposed high-speed rail network, which would link San Fransisco with Los Angeles, creating the first real alternative to car and aeroplane travel in the State's modern history.

After years of delay and political obfuscation, the 220mph railway was finally due to take a step towards becoming reality on 4 November, the day America elects its next president, when Californians get to vote in a referendum on Proposition 1A, over whether the construction project should actually go ahead.

Now, of course, the rail network's noisy political opponents have been given a PR gift: in addition to claiming the project will be too expensive, they can play the trump card of having health n' safety on their side.