Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="penncentral2002"] [quote user="BNSF & DMIR 4Ever"] What really baffles me is that it's the prosecution's responsibility to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the gates didn't work. They didn't do that in any way whatsoever. They relied on non-existent evidence, and in spite of a police report and an eyewitness stating that the gates were down, they still prevailed. In the eyes of the judicial system, this shouldn't even be where it is now, and should have been dismissed years ago. [/quote]  Uh, you are thinking of criminal law (and the standard there is actually "beyond a reasonable doubt").  Civil cases generally operate under a preponderence of the evidence standard.  If the signals were not properly operational, that would constitute negligence. Police on the scene are generally not trained in accident investigation.  Police reports are also considered preliminary and are thus less persuasive (and can be totally discounted) if the later final investigation reaches the opposite conclusion - it sounds like that is what happened in this case is that the final investigation reached a different conclusion than the initial police report.  That happens, especially when a police report may be based on self serving or incomplete information. Just because the lights were observed flashing doesn't mean they were working properly - the lights and gates could have come on too late trapping the car for example.  When lights and gates are posted the railroad has the duty to ensure they work properly and to post signs warning them if they do not work correctly or to post alternative means to stop traffic such as an employee.   If there is no admissible persuasive evidence showing the lights were functioning properly, the railroad is liable period.  Statements by railroad employees are considered self serving and thus properly accorded less weight than other evidence.  The absence of evidence can be just as important as the evidence which is there.  If you were charged with murder and you had a motive and means to commit, but you didn't do it and was home alone at the time, there is a good chance you are still going to prison even though you are innocent.  And criminal cases require a much more stringent burden of proof.  In short, I think that you are misreading what happened - here the evidence suggested that the car did not go around the gates - no evidence was there that the gates were working properly other than the self serving statement of a railroad employee (which as I pointed out does not prove anything because it does not prove that the gates deployed at the proper time) and a preliminary police report that was later proven by subsequent investigation to be false.  There is also the indication that BNSF may well have tampered with the evidence - at the minimum, they did not properly secure the evidence - both cases are absolute no nos.  The only reasonable inference from that combination of facts is that the gates were not working properly.   BNSF deserved to lose that case. [/quote] If what you say is true (and I have no reason to believe it isn’t), it certainly entirely explains the outcome of this Anoka crash trial.  To me, the most surprising information that you have contributed is that the railroad company can be held liable for the crash if they cannot prove that the signals were working.  If that is true, I am amazed that the railroads do not have a bomb proof, iron clad method of proving the signal functions.  I would expect them to have a data line leading right into the police department or some similar witnessing vault destination. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> This burden to prove that the signals are working would seem to mean that the railroad companies have a higher potential liability with signalized crossings that they do with un-signalized crossings per train event.  I guess they can’t be blamed for signal failure or failing to prove that the signals worked, if there are no signals.   Although maybe they can be blamed for not providing signals at non-signalized crossings, since it could be argued that the hazard to drivers is the same, even though it occurs less frequently at those crossings that railroad companies typically decide do not warrant signals.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag