schlimm Saturnalia I have about as much sympathy (hint: none at all) for protestors hit on freeways as I do for pedestrians hit and killed walking on the tracks. With a reasonable human being, it is possible to assign blame correctly yet simultaneously still have some sympathy for people close to the victim of a fatal accident.
Saturnalia I have about as much sympathy (hint: none at all) for protestors hit on freeways as I do for pedestrians hit and killed walking on the tracks.
With a reasonable human being, it is possible to assign blame correctly yet simultaneously still have some sympathy for people close to the victim of a fatal accident.
Yes.
Assigned blame: whoever jumps off a cliff, drinks rotten milk, or fouls railroad tracks.
Sympathy goes to: family of those who jumped off the cliff, drank rotten milk, or fouled railroad tracks.
All actions have consequences. Most consequences to most decision are minor if insignificant. There are, however, those actions whose consequences are so spectacularly bad that we anticipate people to notice that beforehand, and thus not do the action.
In this case, a group obviously ignored, knowingly or not, the dangers of the tracks. That's where this case comes in, because in the case of a group of people with a set leader (the film director), there is likely a reasonable assumption on the part of the subordinates that what the leader is saying is true, and in this case, said leader apparently told his subordinates that they had permission to be there.
The whole discovered vs undiscovered trespassing thing, while legal, is lame as applied to railroads. If every train reported every trespasser, and the expectation was that following trains would have to slow down, then railroads would literally go nowhere. Their fixed guideway, coupled with a right-of-way, lends itself to trespassers who aren't really in any direct danger.
The lawyers know this, of course, but their job is to represent their clients and find those legal crevices, not judge morality or cause and effect.
SaturnaliaIf every train reported every trespasser, and the expectation was that following trains would have to slow down, then railroads would literally go nowhere.
Quote from one news story of the trial:
Jones’ lawyers introduced CSX’s employee policy that stated that conductors must “immediately notify a dispatcher of any unauthorized outside party on a track or right of way … Be especially cautious around bridges and tunnels.”
According to that information, it is a CSX rule that employees must notify the dispatcher of all trespassers. I would not conclude that this discovery and notification then necessarily leads to a requirement to order following trains to slow down. I suspect that this type of thing would be handled on a case by case basis.
For instance, if someone were observed merely crossing the track and then proceeding on their way, I doubt the company would feel a need to warn and slow down following trains.
But that would be quite different from observing about 25 people clustered around a bridge approach. How common is that? It seems to me that a response to warn following trains in this case would be absolutely justified even if there were no rule requiring it.
Were the people and the bed on the bridge when the preceding trains passed by? Were they on the right of way? If they were not even on the right of way, the crews of the previous trains had no responsibility to report their presence.
Johnny
I'm already sorry for contributing more to this thread, and I'd really like to comment further on legal strategies to put CSX on the deep-pockets hook for civil damages it has no real moral reason to be saddled with... but
well
to mention something that might be apropos here rather in the not-so-humorous humor thread: what's the difference between this thread's result of thoroughly pulverizing dead horses and dog food made from grinding up dead horses?
Deggesty Were the people and the bed on the bridge when the preceding trains passed by? Were they on the right of way? If they were not even on the right of way, the crews of the previous trains had no responsibility to report their presence.
Whether they were on the right of way or not is reported both ways in two different news stories.
Euclid Whether they were on the right of way or not is reported both ways in two different news stories.
Which just goes to prove the stupidity of holding a firm opinion based on news stories. The reality is that probably both news stories had major factual errors, misinterpretations and omissions, just different ones.
cx500 Euclid Whether they were on the right of way or not is reported both ways in two different news stories. Which just goes to prove the stupidity of holding a firm opinion based on news stories. The reality is that probably both news stories had major factual errors, misinterpretations and omissions, just different ones.
Oh I think there are factual errors, but you have to go with what they give you. You can always change your assessment as the stories change. For instance, I do not believe that CSX experts said that dumping the air on the fatal train would have derailed it, as one news story reports. Nobody would have said that.
So I assume they said that dumping the air might have derailed the train, which of course is a true assertion without any risk.
RME I'm already sorry for contributing more to this thread, and I'd really like to comment further on legal strategies to put CSX on the deep-pockets hook for civil damages it has no real moral reason to be saddled with... but well to mention something that might be apropos here rather in the not-so-humorous humor thread: what's the difference between this thread's result of thoroughly pulverizing dead horses and dog food made from grinding up dead horses?
The relevant NTSB press release : The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the film crew’s unauthorized entry onto the CSX Transportation right-of-way at the Altamaha River bridge with personnel and equipment, despite CSX Transportation’s repeated denial of permission to access the railroad property. Contributing to the accident was the adjacent property owner’s actions to facilitate the film crew’s access to the right-of-way and bridge.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmThe relevant NTSB press release :
And the link to the relevant NTSB report, with photos.
schlimmThe relevant NTSB press release : The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the film crew’s unauthorized entry onto the CSX Transportation right-of-way at the Altamaha River bridge with personnel and equipment, despite CSX Transportation’s repeated denial of permission to access the railroad property.
I'm in agreement with schlimm. The preceding trains saw people NEAR the ROW, and were under no obligation to report their presence if they were not on railroad property. Fault does not lie on CSX's shoulders but does lie on those who chose to disregard the fact they had been denied access to the property and in spite of denials took their chances. IMO, it should be an open and shut verdict in favor of CSX.
That is not intended to say that I have no compassion for the young woman who lost her life or her parents. A young, and possibly productive life was lost in the name of profit on the part of the film producer. Sad indeed that this ever came to trial. The real criminal is not CSX but the producer and director who chose to ignore the declanaction of CSX to allow them on their private property. When do these people understand the meaning of the word NO?
Norm
This is nothing more the 'mining for money' by the plaintiff's attorney's on the hopes of a big pay day if CSX settles rather than defends. CSX would not be performing their financial responsibility to their stockholders to settle this suit. Defend the suit and get their legal fees paid by the plaintiff attorney's that have filed a frivolous suit.
I sincerely doubt that the dead girl's family has paid a fee to retain these ambulance chasers, whom I suspect are always looking for a settlement, not a trial.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
This NTSB report reads to me (again, I have zero RR experience) that the tracks were clear up until the train was very close. If I'm understanding this correctly, it seems to me there would have been no reason to apply braking until it was much to late to have made any difference.
I'm having a hard time finding any fault on the part of CSX, here.
BaltACDCSX would not be performing their financial responsibility to their stockholders to settle this suit. Defend the suit and get their legal fees paid by the plaintiff attorney's that have filed a frivolous suit.
But having a jury trial with 12 people that don't know anything about railroad ops isn't a sure bet, either.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Norm48327...When do these people understand the meaning of the word NO?
Many producers and directors in the production industry (which I DO have experience in) too often believe they know better that anyone else, and that rules are for "the little people," not them.
I'm almost surprised they requested access, as it's often said to be "easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission."
WDGF Norm48327 ...When do these people understand the meaning of the word NO? Many producers and directors in the production industry (which I DO have experience in) too often believe they know better that anyone else, and that rules are for "the little people," not them. I'm almost surprised they requested access, as it's often said to be "easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission."
Norm48327 ...When do these people understand the meaning of the word NO?
And how much forgiveness are they getting for killing one of their own?
BaltACDAnd how much forgiveness are they getting for killing one of their own?
She trusted the people she was working for to run a reasonably safe production, and it killed her. In a sane world, no one would ever hire on with them again.
WDGF BaltACD And how much forgiveness are they getting for killing one of their own? She trusted the people she was working for to run a reasonably safe production, and it killed her. In a sane world, no one would ever hire on with them again.
BaltACD And how much forgiveness are they getting for killing one of their own?
There were several posts early in this discussion that made similar observations of what goes on in the film industry, especially in respect to the attitudes of many producers to rules and safety of the film crew. I would have thought a sane industry would have learned the lessons from the filming of the Twilight Zone movie.
erikem WDGF BaltACD And how much forgiveness are they getting for killing one of their own? She trusted the people she was working for to run a reasonably safe production, and it killed her. In a sane world, no one would ever hire on with them again. There were several posts early in this discussion that made similar observations of what goes on in the film industry, especially in respect to the attitudes of many producers to rules and safety of the film crew. I would have thought a sane industry would have learned the lessons from the filming of the Twilight Zone movie.
Didn't we have a stuntman killed in the filming of some show just this week?
http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/15/media/walking-dead-stuntman-death-amc/index.html
This is from the NTSB report:
On the afternoon of February 20, 2014, the film crew arrived at the Rayonier property, with the intent to film at and around the CSX bridge over the Altamaha River. Rayonier personnel escorted the film crew through their property to the railroad right-of-way, where the first-assistant director informed the film crew that two trains would pass and then filming would begin. The investigation revealed that the film crew complied with the work directions of the film director and first-assistant director.
This was prior to the passage of the two trains that preceded the third train that hit the filming set. It says the film crew was escorted to the right of way.
Did the film crew just stand there at the boundary of the right of way and wait for the first two trains to pass?
OR—in preparation for filming, did the film crew enter the right of way immediately upon being escorted to its edge, and begin trespassing?
Is there a reference that clarifies this point?
Euclid This is from the NTSB report: On the afternoon of February 20, 2014, the film crew arrived at the Rayonier property, with the intent to film at and around the CSX bridge over the Altamaha River. Rayonier personnel escorted the film crew through their property to the railroad right-of-way, where the first-assistant director informed the film crew that two trains would pass and then filming would begin. The investigation revealed that the film crew complied with the work directions of the film director and first-assistant director. This was prior to the passage of the two trains that preceded the third train that hit the filming set. It says the film crew was escorted to the right of way. Did the film crew just stand there at the boundary of the right of way and wait for the first two trains to pass? OR—in preparation for filming, did the film crew enter the right of way immediately upon being escorted to its edge, and begin trespassing? Is there a reference that clarifies this point?
I don't believe there is, or at least I have not seen one. What I do believe is that the film crew followed the orders of the director while trusting him to keep everyone safe. It is obvious to me as an observer of the available information that the director had no intention of acknowledging the refusal of CSX to allow them on their property, and did trespass illegally. IMO, only the director is responsible for Sarah's death. While I have compassion for her parents, loss of a young life is hard to take, and I've been through that, in this instance I believe CSX is in no way responsible. Given my opinion it is unlikely the plaintiff's attorney would allow me to be seated on the jury.
Norm48327 Euclid This is from the NTSB report: On the afternoon of February 20, 2014, the film crew arrived at the Rayonier property, with the intent to film at and around the CSX bridge over the Altamaha River. Rayonier personnel escorted the film crew through their property to the railroad right-of-way, where the first-assistant director informed the film crew that two trains would pass and then filming would begin. The investigation revealed that the film crew complied with the work directions of the film director and first-assistant director. This was prior to the passage of the two trains that preceded the third train that hit the filming set. It says the film crew was escorted to the right of way. Did the film crew just stand there at the boundary of the right of way and wait for the first two trains to pass? OR—in preparation for filming, did the film crew enter the right of way immediately upon being escorted to its edge, and begin trespassing? Is there a reference that clarifies this point? I don't believe there is, or at least I have not seen one. What I do believe is that the film crew followed the orders of the director while trusting him to keep everyone safe. It is obvious to me as an observer of the available information that the director had no intention of acknowledging the refusal of CSX to allow them on their property, and did trespass illegally. IMO, only the director is responsible for Sarah's death. While I have compassion for her parents, loss of a young life is hard to take, and I've been through that, in this instance I believe CSX is in no way responsible. Given my opinion it is unlikely the plaintiff's attorney would allow me to be seated on the jury.
This point about exactly when the film crew began the trespassing which would have been seen by passing trains is most confusing. It seems to be a central part of the plaintiff’s case, so it would be nice if it were made clear for once. The NTSB report does not make it clear.
Apparently they have the locomotive video from the train #2, but not from train #1. Both of these trains preceded train #3 which struck the movie set. So what I would like to know is this:
Does the camera of train #2 show the film crew trespassing on CSX property?
Consider this quote from one news story:
Lowry [plaintiff attorney] had his technician cue up the video of the train that passed at 3:36 PM.
“This is about 45 minutes before the incident train,” he said. “You can see the trestle in the background as they are approaching,” Lowry said, pointing to the screen. “There are people right there next to the track and right here there are people right next to the track. They are literally feet from the track. This isn’t the general vicinity, this is right there. So at 3:36 PM we know that at least one train went by and saw people right next to the tracks. And as Mr. Jordan himself said, the purpose of this video is to show what the engineers and conductors saw. So because of their own admission, we know that the engineers and conductors saw people right next to the track.”
So clearly, they are talking about the video from train #2 showing the film crew trespassing on CSX property. They are not on Rayonier property, standing at the boundary threshold of CSX property, as has been alleged.
Euclid Saturnalia If every train reported every trespasser, and the expectation was that following trains would have to slow down, then railroads would literally go nowhere. Quote from one news story of the trial: Jones’ lawyers introduced CSX’s employee policy that stated that conductors must “immediately notify a dispatcher of any unauthorized outside party on a track or right of way … Be especially cautious around bridges and tunnels.” According to that information, it is a CSX rule that employees must notify the dispatcher of all trespassers. I would not conclude that this discovery and notification then necessarily leads to a requirement to order following trains to slow down. I suspect that this type of thing would be handled on a case by case basis.
Saturnalia If every train reported every trespasser, and the expectation was that following trains would have to slow down, then railroads would literally go nowhere.
Right. What I'm saying is that the lawyer's arguments will obviously be along a frivilous line which no sane person would expect (that every train who sees a trespasser shall make following trains aware, and they should then approach at a signficantly reduced speed).
It's a major issue with the justice system, and why we all tend to hate it, because they deal with twisted words or literal meanings depending on what they need, while the rest of us actually act largely in accordance with common sense and cause-and-effect logic, by practical necessity.
If we all worked the risk out of our lives like lawyers argue we *should*, then we'd all be hidden behind ten feet of bubble wrap and sit in bed all day.
Oh wait...that's unhealthy too!
Let's see -- a film newbie wanting to advance in the film / TV business. If Newbie knew of RR dangers but director ordered Newbie onto tracks how (s)he could refuse?. Refuse: then expect to be fired and blacklisted ?
The property line between being legally on Rayonier property and trespassing on CSX property is not marked for trains passing personnel in the area sufficient to acknowledge that people in that area are in fact trespassing and not on Rayonier property. Rayonier has the right to have people on their property.
The visual of personnel actually on the bridge is prima facia evidence of trespassing at that point in time. The track structure and bridge are evidence to the film personnel that they are trespassing without any authority to be where they are.
BaltACDThe visual of personnel actually on the bridge is prima facia evidence of trespassing at that point in time. The track structure and bridge are evidence to the film personnel that they are trespassing without any authority to be where they are.
Yes, and that is apparently what the visual evidence from the crew and video of train #2 shows, that is, the film crew was trespassing.
But this runs counter to a wide belief here that the facts are that the film crew did not trespass until after train #2 had passed. And therefore the people who believe that version of the facts, in turn conclude that the crew of train #2 had no duty to report the trespassing because the film crew was not on the CSX property at that point.
So there are two conflicting versions of the story, one indicating trespass at the time train #2 passed, and the other indicating no trespass until train #2 had passed.
That is the point I was making in the above post.
Euclid BaltACD The visual of personnel actually on the bridge is prima facia evidence of trespassing at that point in time. The track structure and bridge are evidence to the film personnel that they are trespassing without any authority to be where they are. Yes, and that is apparently what the visual evidence from the crew and video of train #2 shows, that is, the film crew was trespassing. But this runs counter to a wide belief here that the facts are that the film crew did not trespass until after train #2 had passed. And therefore the people who believe that version of the facts, in turn conclude that the crew of train #2 had no duty to report the trespassing because the film crew was not on the CSX property at that point. So there are two conflicting versions of the story, one indicating trespass at the time train #2 passed, and the other indicating no trespass until train #2 had passed. That is the point I was making in the above post.
BaltACD The visual of personnel actually on the bridge is prima facia evidence of trespassing at that point in time. The track structure and bridge are evidence to the film personnel that they are trespassing without any authority to be where they are.
Remember, Rayonier owns both sides of the CSX right of way. I am certain Rayonier personnel needing to access the other side of their property ALWAYS go to the road crossing to cross from one side of their property to the other.[/sarcasm]
Due to web site posting comment on wrong thread here it is properly situated.
Posted by blue streak 1 on Sunday, July 16, 2017 11:56 AM
Thought. -- A young person trying to break into the film / TV business. Even with experience around trains would be extremely reluctant to disobey a director's order to get on the bridge. If I disobeyed would probably expect to not only be fired but black balled ?
Saturnalia Euclid Saturnalia If every train reported every trespasser, and the expectation was that following trains would have to slow down, then railroads would literally go nowhere. Quote from one news story of the trial: Jones’ lawyers introduced CSX’s employee policy that stated that conductors must “immediately notify a dispatcher of any unauthorized outside party on a track or right of way … Be especially cautious around bridges and tunnels.” According to that information, it is a CSX rule that employees must notify the dispatcher of all trespassers. I would not conclude that this discovery and notification then necessarily leads to a requirement to order following trains to slow down. I suspect that this type of thing would be handled on a case by case basis. Right. What I'm saying is that the lawyer's arguments will obviously be along a frivilous line which no sane person would expect (that every train who sees a trespasser shall make following trains aware, and they should then approach at a signficantly reduced speed). It's a major issue with the justice system, and why we all tend to hate it, because they deal with twisted words or literal meanings depending on what they need, while the rest of us actually act largely in accordance with common sense and cause-and-effect logic, by practical necessity. If we all worked the risk out of our lives like lawyers argue we *should*, then we'd all be hidden behind ten feet of bubble wrap and sit in bed all day. Oh wait...that's unhealthy too!
You have a very biased view of our legal system.
schlimm You have a very biased view of our legal system.
I think the word you're looking for is perspective. I have a somewhat anti-lawyer view of our justice system.
The practical person simply cannot agree with the thinking of the vast majority of lawyers, because lawyers DO NOT look for the situation for practical sense, they look at it for whatever edge they can gain, whatever argument can be made, to satisfy their client, from winning a large settlment, to staying out of prison.
That's their job, and there's not really any blame I place on them.
But as a citizen who has to go through life, I find it incredibly unsavory to think that way. We're in a litigious society which has ended up with us labelling everything with every concieveable hazard. Now, there are good cases for warnings, and there are good injury lawsuits.
But when somebody sues (and may win) because CSX, a private company, did not slow their trains down, when somebody BROKE THE LAW to enter upon the right-of-way, and then fouled the tracks, that is where the practicalist scratches their head, but the lawyer dives into the infinite decimal place of law books and case history, to find whatever sliver of an argument that can be made for holding CSX accountable for the actions of a different person, who broke the law in order to find themselves in the dangerous situation, which would be dangerous to any sane person.
This sort of thing bleeds billions from the economy annually. We need TORT reform, and the sooner the better.
We have a system which rewards the lawsuit, not personal responsibility.
When you enter railroad property unsolicited, as in trespassing, as in breaking federal law, you are a criminal, not the victim of the railroad's "negligence" when you get hit. Trains travel on clearly defined tracks, and in order to be hit, you must be among them.
Think of it this way: are we suing the people who should have known, and had the responsibility to know, in order to stop the event? No, we're not. We're suing people whose property rights were violated. The railroad is in fact a victim, not a negligent party. It was the producers who violated federal law, and were negligent in placing their employees in danger.
Again, it isn't that I hate lawyers. Rather, I loathe the thinking necessitated by their job, and the damage years of frivilous litigation has done to our society.
Does anyone know if the film director and/or his company are still in business? Is the director serving a sentence?
This may have been covered earlier in this thread or elsewhere, but a reminder may be appropriate.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.