Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Amtrak Accident - Non-Working Crossing Signals

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Falcon48"] [quote user="Bucyrus"] [quote user="Falcon48"] [quote user="Bucyrus"] But again, going back to a question I asked earlier, who is at fault for this crash under the Illinois law?  The way I read the law, the driver has to be at fault.  But to many, it must appear that the railroad is at fault for allowing its automatic warning system to fail.  I really would like to know the answer.  It often seems so clear-cut who is at fault in grade crossing crashes.  Yet, in this case, the posters do not seem to agree.  [/quote]  I'm having some trouble understanding why there is so much disagreement.  I have a fair amount of experience in grade crossing accident issues, and I can guarantee you that, where there is a grade crossing accident due to an "activation failure" of grade crossing warning signals, the railroad is going to end up buying the store.  That is particularly the case where railroad maintenance personnel created the condition, which may be what happened here.  That tells you what the law really is. I can't imagine a judge or jury - in Illinois or anywhere else - deciding that a railroad can avoid liability for this kind of accident because the motorist didn't look for a train, even though the grade crossing signals weren't activated. You can argue about snippets of language from the statute all you want, but this is the reality. I would venture to say that no one involved who has actually been involved in grade crossing accident litigation would dispute this.  [/quote] I have no idea what a judge or jury would decide in this Amtrak crash where the signals failed to activate.  I understand that you have experience in this area, and you may be entirely correct about what a judge and jury would decide in such a case.  But the following language of the law does conflict with your conclusion:    “The person [driver] must exercise due care and caution as the existence of a railroad track across a highway is a warning of danger.”  Clearly, this sentence refers to signalized crossings when the signals are clear to traffic.  However, I do find it to be oddly worded and overly general.  Other language of the law strips the default yield requirement from the crossbucks at signalized crossings, and the law replaces it with the above sentence that vaguely requires due care and caution.    I find this issue of what drivers are supposed to do when crossing an un-activated, signalized crossing to be the most interesting aspect of the overall grade crossing safety.  People who respect or like trains will always tell you that they look for trains at un-activated, signalized crossings rather than just relying on the signals.  But do they really?  It is one thing to say it, but another thing to actually do it.   I believe that the industry would rather water down the issue of why drivers need to look for trains approaching un-activated, signalized crossings rather than admit that the reason to look for trains in such circumstances is that the signals can fail to activate.  As further evidence of this, I have noticed that people in the industry will give you what apparently is the “company line” by telling you that the signals cannot fail because they are “fail safe,” However, we know that is a faulty premise.   [/quote] I hate to keep repeating myself but, when you read a statute, you have to read it as a whole and give effect to all of its provisions.  This is a fundamental principle of statutory construction. You don't take one sentence out of a statute and read it in a way that negates some of the statute's other provisions.  What you are saying is that the language you've quoted in blue requires a driver to look for and yield for a train even at crossings with active warning systems where the signals are not indicating the approach of a train.  That is contrary to the other part of the statute that says that crossbuck signs are to be treated at yield signs only at crossings that don't have active warning systems. Your reading would effectively negate the latter langauge.  You have to read the statute in a way that gives effect to BOTH provisions.  The reading that does that is a reading which treats the above language as saying that, if a person actually is aware of the approach a train, he/she should do swhat is necessary to avoid an accident.  This is the "last clear chance" doctrine I've mentioned in other posts.  If your reading of the statute were correct, a railroad could never be held liable for a grade crossing accident in Illinois. I absolutely guarantee you that this is NOT the law in Illinois.  You would be laughed out of court if you made such an argument to an Illinois judge.   [/quote]   I have read the whole statute several times, and I am just trying to understand what the words instruct me to do as a driver.  As you have explained, the language of the law negates the normal full-time yield meaning of the crossbucks at signalized crossing.  So there is no requirement for a driver to look for trains at an un-activated, signalized crossing in fulfillment of a yield requirement of the crossbuck.  However, the law does stipulates this for signalized crossings: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>   “The person [driver] must exercise due care and caution as the existence of a railroad track across a highway is a warning of danger.” <o:p></o:p> As a driver, I do not know what that sentence specifically means.  It only suggests to me that I am to be careful of getting hit by a train.  I would interpret it as a yield requirement.   <o:p></o:p> You say that if that sentence means that a driver is to yield, it would conflict with the language that strips the yield requirement from the crossbuck.  But would it conflict?  The sentence requiring due care and caution does not put the yield requirement back into the crossbuck, even if it means the same thing as yield.  So I don’t see the conflict that you mention.  The way I would interpret it is that I am to yield at non-signalized crossings because the crossbuck means yield; and I am to yield at signalized crossings because the sentence in blue tells me I must use due care and caution.     <o:p></o:p> You say that my interpretation is incorrect because the language in blue does not mean that a driver should look for trains and yield to any that are approaching.  Instead, you say that the language in blue refers to the “Last clear chance” doctrine.  How would that doctrine apply to this Amtrak crash?  Who had the last chance?  The train did not have the last chance because it could not stop in time.  The signal maintainers did have the last chance if they had known that the signals would fail, but they did not know that.  The driver would have had the last chance if she had looked for trains and yielded to any that were approaching.  You say that the driver was not required to look for trains, so the driver had no last chance.  Yet the last clear chance doctrine says that the driver must be unable to avoid the collision by the exercise of reasonable vigilance and care.   <o:p></o:p> So the last clear chance doctrine says the driver must exercise reasonable vigilance and care, and the language of the Illinois law says the driver must exercise due care and caution.  And you seem to be saying that a driver will fulfill these requirements when the automatic protection is not activated simply by passing though the crossing without looking for trains, and assuming that that un-activated status of the automatic protection proves that no trains are approaching.
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