Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Texas Official Admits Missteps That Helped Railroads in Suits
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by djjoe</i> <br /><br />I read an article that I thought to be about one officials civic failure to testify truthfully as a witness. I read that his conduct kept some victims from a more advantaged hearing of their complaint. <br /> That's not what you read, or wanted to read, of course. You're all too ready to slap leather and spray the forum with the "victim stupidity' cards you play so well. It's like the NYT is your "daddy". <br /> Don't hurt yourselves backslappin' each other and enjoy your choir practice. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />I REPEAT: <br /> <br /><b>Read the article again and take it at face value: what's really at issue here is not crossing safety, it's a legal question as to whether or not plaintiffs' lawyers in the State of Texas can bring a lawsuit against a railroad on a crossing case by getting around the statutory protection provided by the Texas Legislature (see above).</b>That has to do with legal tactics and not safety, and proper venue for such issues is in the Texas Civil Court system and Texas Legislature. <br /> <br />In simpler terms: <br /> <br />1. The beef here dealt with in the article has to do with legal maneuvering to get a case in front of a District Court in the State of Texas, NOT SAFETY!! <br /> <br />2. The Laws of the State of Texas severely limit liability and refuse to grant venue in crossing accidents when Federal Funds are involved. That's a right that Texas and every other state has, and until it is shown to be unconstitutional, it will continue to be a right. <br /> <br />3. At least some plaintiffs' attorneys in Texas don't like this law because it keeps them from suing the deep pocket--the RR company, in a crossing accident, REGARDLESS OF FAULT, if Federal funds are involved--read the law, I posted it. Fault here can thus be a matter of law, in which case it may never get before a jury because a judge will rule on it, and that's what these attorneys don't like and the NYT is going along with as a de facto mouthpiece. <br /> <br />4. The TxDOT official is NOT necessarily wrong or untruthful, or abrogating his civic duty. That's a matter for a Texas court to decide--not the NYT. He relied on records PLUS his knowledge and experience from a career at the agency--THAT'S WHAT EVERY EXPERT WITNESS IN THE WORLD DOES. The agency simply does not keep paperwork from as far back as 1977 that can be used as paper evidence. Do you keep paperwork from that far back?? If you had to go to trial over that paperwork (i.e., you or a party related to the paperwork that you no longer have on-hand got sued), would you be willing to testify under oath, based on your knowledge and experience, as to the subject matter and contents of that specific paperwork in queston, WHICH YOU NO LONGER HAVE?? It's your paperwork, after all, and who knows more about it than you do?? <br /> <br />5. When you're the director of a program at a state agency, you have an absolutely unique set of information that you can testify about, regardless of how long you have been there or whether the paperwork is still there, because the corporate history is there, and the staff is there, and the law is there. That individual is more qualified to testify about what the agency policy has been and what the agency did than anyone else except another insider with equivalent knowledge. <br /> <br />6. Don't assume that attorneys with a big stake in the outcome aren't going to spin and slant any statement made by any witness (pro or con) in order to get the result that they want--and if a newspaper goes along with that, well, that's what they do sometimes--just look at the Michael Jackson case and objectively look at how both sides are playing the media, and how the media is lapping it up like a thirsty dog. In point of fact, with regard to crossings, TxDOT IS a friend of the railroads just like he said, precisely because they dole out the Federal funds to get the warning devices installed and the surfaces replanked. So is every other equivalent state agency in every other state. They give them money to install the devices--that makes them a friend in that regard for obvious reasons. <br /> <br />7. The NYT has decided to interject itself in this legal issue and attempt to generate a scandal where there may not be one. <br /> <br />Leave this one to the courts and legislators in Texas, guys. That's where it belongs.
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
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy