Film crew death

[daveklepper]

Euclid, you and the court say that CSX is guilty because they are not perfect.  It will be interesting see if the verdict is appealed and whether the verdict will be overturned.

CSX, Rayoner, and the CSX crew may not have behaved perfectly.  But they did not commit any crime.  Miller committed a crime.

I think delaying a brake application for fear of topling the bridge from derailment is a perfectly reasonable excuse.

[schlimm]

daveklepper

Euclid, you and the court say that CSX is guilty because they are not perfect.  It will be interesting see if the verdict is appealed and whether the verdict will be overturned.

CSX, Rayoner, and the CSX crew may not have behaved perfectly.  But they did not commit any crime.  Miller committed a crime.

I think delaying a brake application for fear of topling the bridge from derailment is a perfectly reasonable excuse.

 

Dav, this was a civil suit, not criminal case.  The judicial proof standards are very different.

As in most matters, probabilities should factor into judgment.  If the engineer did not make any brake application, it was probable that anything or any person near the track would be obliterated.  If he made service brake application, it is 100% probable that the train's arrival at the bridge would be delayed and it would have been at a much slower speed (3-10mph?). If emergency braking had been attempted, the probability of derailing, etc. must be (considerably) less than 50% or no one would ever do that.

[Euclid]

daveklepper

Euclid, you and the court say that CSX is guilty because they are not perfect

Dave, I never said that.  For one thing, I do not know how the law was applied to this case regarding a duty owed to trespassers.  In all of the discussion surrounding this case, the actual reason why CSX should share blame has never been explained beyond the fact that they did not follow their own rules about reporting trespassers.  CSX always replied to that point by saying it does not prove their negligence.  I have not heard anyone answer them on that point. 

[Anonymous]

Paul of Covington

This is what bugs me: the calculations for stopping the train are figured from the time the people first came into view.

As the media reported the stopping distance calculation was provided by the defense, I speculate they wanted to say that even if the engineer had made the maximum service application the train wouldn't have stopped in time.

In such a calculation you often use the best possible circumstances. But then you have to be clear about the imponderabilia.

In another forum a read the statement of an engineer that following calculation would be a good approximation for the stopping distance:
s [feet]= V² [mph]

With 56 mph s would be 3,136 ft. So the 2,135 ft from my backwards calculations seems to be on the short side.

I believe the engineer thought for a long time the people would come off the bridge in time or be safe on the walkway of the bridge. It retreats between the truss members as can be seen at 17'':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgL39l6KrdQ

When he realized his wrong jugdement (because of the wrong reactions/actions by the film crew) it was too late to reduce the speed considerably by braking.

As long as we only know the statement "train would have stopped 2 seconds after impact) everything stays speculative.

Calculating stopping distances is quite complex. But when you know the train composition car by car and all other train details there is software today to calculate the stopping distance. You still have to make assumptions but by varying them you can get quite realistic results. Mass doesn't have an influence as the braking power is mass dependend too and is eliminated from formulars.
Regards, Volker

[daveklepper]

Again, I don't think CXS's lawyers were up-to-snuff.  Imagine if the Jury had been required to view some films of grade-crossing accidents.  Again, a low-speed contact can often derail the train, while a high-speed impact almost always sends the vehicle, either whole or in peices, flying off to one or both sides, with the train remaining intact and on the rails.

If CSX doesn't win an appeal, even if it settles out-of-court, with the lessor amount without appealing, it is going to have to press criminal charges against Miller.  Otherwise, a precident will be set by this case that will have disastorous effects on the railroad industry with regard to grade-crossing accidents.

No, Euclid, you did not say that CSX, Rayoner, and the train crew had to be perfect.  The Jury said that in their verdict.  You are simply providing the us readers with facts or judgements that show that they are not perfect.

[Euclid]

We don’t know where the stopping calculations were figured from as the start point.  But it seems unreasonable to speculatively conclude that they were figured for the worst case for the engineer and did not include the time he needed to assimilate what he saw on the track. 

Why would the CSX experts calculate in a way that disadvantaged the engineer who they were in court to defend?  If anyone really bothers to think about the testimony of the experts, you will see that they are NOT saying that any application of brakes would have prevented the accident.  They are defending the engineer for not braking by saying that neither an emergency nor service application was a viable solution.  They said he could not make an emergency application because that would have derailed the train.  They said he could not make a service application because that would have stopped 2 seconds too late. 

In my mind, they have no credibility.  Their service application calculation sounds fishy.  It would be impossible to calculate to that accuracy.  Their assertion as fact that an emergency application would have derailed the train is also impossible to know.

I don’t see how anyone can conclude for certain that the emergency did not begin until the train reached the bridge.  That may be a possibility if the engineer could not see any fouling of the track until the bed fell back on the track right before impact.   But you can see that train close enough for the engineer to observe fouling at the same time as several people are on the track and trying to lift the bed off of the track.  Yes, one has to figure the likelihood of minor incursions clearing in time.  That happens all the time.  But seeing several people on a narrow trestle deck struggling to move a large object should be at least approaching a true emergency situation.  Prudence should tip the balance at that point to make the emergency application, in my opinion. 

Also bear in mind that an engineer has other reasons for not dumping the air besides a concern that it might derail the train.  None of those other reasons would sound very convincing in court.

The quick action brake valve requires quick thinking and decisiveness.  If you introduce the need to hesitate in order to decide the risk of derailment, it compromises the very nature of the Westinghouse invention. 

[Anonymous]

daveklepper

If CSX doesn't win an appeal, even if it settles out-of-court, with the lessor amount without appealing, it is going to have to press criminal charges against Miller.

Can they press criminal charges? Miller is already convicted for his crime I think.

I think the CSX attorneys thought the two letters saying no were enough to avoid the current verdict.

Here in Germany it is checked if you have done everything reasonable to avoid an accident even when the opponent took your right of way. If the court comes to the conclusion you haven't you have to carry part of the costs.

That might have happened in court with CSX.
Regards, Volker

[Anonymous]

Euclid

Why would the CSX experts calculate in a way that disadvantaged the engineer who they were in court to defend?

There are two extreme ways you can do it. You make all assumptions in favor of the engineer. Even if the result is an impact the assumption are at least disputable.

Or you take the earliest possible start of braking and everything else delivering the shortest braking distance and show that even under best conditions an impact was unavoidable. Nothing to dispute but in this case a low impact speed.

in the later case you have to show the imponerabilia like when was the engineer able to realize the danger, brake delay times, brake propagation rate, weather condition etc.

Euclid

In my mind, they have no credibility. Their service application calculation sounds fishy.

I think for such a judgement we know too little about the calculation itself or the line of defence.

Today's software is relatively good if you know all details of the train. And who had them if not CSX?

There are still assumptions involved but by varying them you might get a good result.

In Germany such calculations are used to determine the maximum allowable speed of a train to keep its stopping distance below the block length of 1,000 m (3,281 ft).
Regards, Volker

[daveklepper]

While all legal aspects of Miller's breaking laws may have been settled as part of the Jury trial, as far as I know there has not been a trial where CSX is the agrieved party, on the basis of Miller interering with lawful trailroad operations.  And I believe such a law suit is an absolute necessity if the Jury verdict is upneald upon appeal or if it is not appealed.  Otherwise the same reasoning will be grasped by lawyers for families of victims of their own foolishness in grade-crossing accidents.  And not all engineers and railroads behave perfectly in such situations.

[BLS53]

daveklepper

While all legal aspects of Miller's breaking laws may have been settled as part of the Jury trial, as far as I know there has not been a trial where CSX is the agrieved party, on the basis of Miller interering with lawful trailroad operations.  And I believe such a law suit is an absolute necessity if the Jury verdict is upneald upon appeal or if it is not appealed.  Otherwise the same reasoning will be grasped by lawyers for families of victims of their own foolishness in grade-crossing accidents.  And not all engineers and railroads behave perfectly in such situations.

 

For someone of your age and education, your lack of a basic understanding of the American legal system is astounding. 

[wanswheel]

Dave’s post, like all of Dave’s thousands of posts, didn't try to hurt nobody.

 

[daveklepper]

BL553:  Please educate me if you consider that I lack a basic understanding.  Did not Miller interfere with railroad operations or did he not?   Was he ever tried for the specific crime of interfering with railrioad operations?  Or just for the death of a specific person?

I am concerned about the verdict being used by "ambulance chasers" in grade-crossing situations in the future.  Should I not be concerned?  Why not?

Please explain why you consider me so stupid.  I will thank you for correcting me.  I do not claim to be a legal expert, only someone concerned about railroading's profitable future.

 

[DSchmitt]

 

daveklepper

I am concerned about the verdict being used by "ambulance chasers" in grade-crossing situations in the future.  Should I not be concerned?  Why not

Unfortunately the US has is a long history of verdicts that encourage ambulance chasers. 

[Anonymous]

daveklepper

Was he ever tried for the specific crime of interfering with railrioad operations? Or just for the death of a specific person?

According to the linked source Miller was convicted for involuntary manslaughter and criminal trespassing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/randall-miller-director-of-gregg-allman-film-pleads-guilty-in-train-crash-death/
Regards, Volker

[daveklepper]

I received the needed education just this morning.  I learned of a case where two women were killed by a drunk driver while waiting for a bus at a bus stop.  The families collected from the transit company on the basis that if a bus had been there they would have been protected.

So the Miller case is not needed as a precedent for the ambulance chasers.  There have been plenty of others, apparently.  Apologies to all!

[Norm48327]

daveklepper

I received the needed education just this morning.  I learned of a case where two women were killed by a drunk driver while waiting for a bus at a bus stop.  The families collected from the transit company on the basis that if a bus had been there they would have been protected.

So the Miller case is not needed as a precedent for the ambulance chasers.  There have been plenty of others, apparently.  Apologies to all!

Dave,

No need for apologies. In my lifetime I have watched our legal system evolve from what was once based on the rule of law to the sympathetic juries of today that will, in sympathy, rule in favor for the plaintiff, offereing them compesation for the loss of a loved one in spite of the factor only the deceased was at fault.

There was a day [long gone now] when people took responsibility for their own actions. Today, It is always someone else's fault. I will not recognize their rational for always blaiming others. Call me stubborn if you wish. I'm of the opinion our legal system has been compromised by greedy lawyers.

[Deggesty]

Norm, I'm with you.

[Euclid]

We all hear the argument that if freight trains had to go into emergency every time they saw someone on the track, the train would never get over the road.  Well, sure, but that is a gross exaggeration of the need for braking, and it is always used to defend cases of a failure to brake when is it needed. 

There is a skill and art in “reading” the situation unfolding ahead of a train.  Because they take a long time to stop, nobody wants to stop them unnecessarily. And distant trespassers seen fouling the track are most likely to get out of the way for their own self-preservation.  It is a judgement call for engineers to avoid an unnecessary stop versus mitigating or preventing a collision.  If there will be no collision, of course not braking is the winning choice, but if a collision does happen, the choice to not brake is a legal disaster. 

Jurors will relate train braking to the highway braking of their own experience.  Nowhere in that experience is there a need to refrain from braking as an emergency appears to be developing.  In any such case on the highway, braking is always prudent and wise.  Jurors also are not aware of the two different braking functions on trains.  They have no idea that “emergency braking” is an all or nothing type of braking that you can’t back off of after committing to it.  To jurors, emergency braking just sounds like vehicle braking for emergencies.  On the highway, failing to brake before a collision is usually due to driver inattention.

Therefore, the argument that an emergency brake application should be withheld because of the danger of derailing the train sounds counterintuitive to a jury.  It sounds like a defective braking system.  It sounds like an exaggerated excuse by those who want to keep moving because of the cost and inconvenience of stopping.  A jury would expect the engineer to error on the side of caution rather to gamble that a collision will not occur. 

[BaltACD]

Euclid

Jurors will relate train braking to the highway braking of their own experience.  Nowhere in that experience is there a need to refrain from braking as an emergency appears to be developing.  In any such case on the highway, braking is always prudent and wise.  Jurors also are not aware of the two different braking functions on trains.  They have no idea that “emergency braking” is an all or nothing type of braking that you can’t back off of after committing to it.  To jurors, emergency braking just sounds like vehicle braking for emergencies.  On the highway, failing to brake before a collision is usually due to driver inattention.

The experience of driving a car, does not equate to the experience of driving a Over the Road truck and neither of those equate to operating a freight train in todays world of railroading.  What you can avoid with a car you can't with a truck; what you can avoid with a car or truck on the highway cannot be avoided by a train operating on the tracks owned by the company that operates.

All to save a bed!

[cx500]

BaltACD

.....

All to save a bed!

I'm surprised the manufacturer of the bed was not also included amongst the parties being sued.  If it had been made of a lighter substance they might have been able to get it clear in time.  (sarcasm! - but makes about as much sense as blaming CSX.)

[Euclid]

BaltACD

The experience of driving a car, does not equate to the experience of driving a Over the Road truck and neither of those equate to operating a freight train in todays world of railroading.

Yes, of course I understand that stopping a train is harder than stopping a highway vehicle, but that is a distraction from the point I was making.  If you look at the sentence preceding what you quoted, it says this: 

If there will be no collision, of course not braking is the winning choice, but if a collision does happen, the choice to not brake is a legal disaster. 

What you quoted from me was about how to avoid the legal disaster and not how to avoid a bed on the track.  Avoiding a legal disaster is not about stopping distance.  It is about convincing a jury that not using the brakes was the right thing to do.  Obviously that did not work and it should have been obvious from the start. 

[BaltACD]

When you try to save a bed, rather than yourself you are a legal disaster.

[tree68]

You have to remember - we're talking about the "bad old railroad," an ogre if ever there was one (doesn't matter which one - all they ever do is wreck and hit innocent cars at crossings).

And the decedent was a pretty young girl, which just makes it worse.

[Anonymous]

I have no experience with the American legal system. Before WWII we had a jury system but the decisions were supervised by professional judges. Today there three professional jadges plus two laymen.

I have read a bit about the trial and to me it seems the CSX attorneys were to sure the two NOs would be enough. They just called one witness, the film crew member that tried to get permission and who refused to take part in the shooting.

If you know of the difficulties laymnn have to understand train physics you should try to teach the jury I think.

I completely agree with BaltACD. In railroading you have to make decisions so early that the situation can change completely in time until impact.

If a situation unfolds differently to the train crew's judgement and expectations it may be too late for stopping in time.
Regards, Volker

[BaltACD]

tree68

You have to remember - we're talking about the "bad old railroad," an ogre if ever there was one (doesn't matter which one - all they ever do is wreck and hit innocent cars at crossings).

And the decedent was a pretty young girl, which just makes it worse.

A pretty young girl, that by her own actions, valued her own life in peanuts on the dollar.  Now she will be forever young, but a long time dead.

[Euclid]

 

In this case, the engineer would have been better off saying that he did not apply any braking because he did not see anything that appeared to require it, and just let it go at that.  Who could find fault with that explanation?

 

[tree68]

Euclid

In this case, the engineer would have been better off saying that he did not apply any braking because he did not see anything that appeared to require it, and just let it go at that.  Who could find fault with that explanation? 

But, but - there were people on the tracks!!!!!

I suspect the outcome of the trial would have been worse for CSX.  It was bad enough (apparently, in the eyes of the jury) that the engineer didn't dump the train as soon as the people could be seen on the bridge.

To say that there was no emergency (which, bed notwithstanding, probably was the case, as we've discussed) would fly in the face of logic for many people, and the plaintiff's attorney's would have emphasized that.

[Electroliner 1935]

Euclid

Who could find fault with that explanation?  

You would be wanting him to get his vision checked. "You can't see the people on a bridge," would be the first question the plaintif Lawyer woul ask.

Reminds me of my first auto accident, I was 16, new license, and misjudged the clearence to a Cadilac in the right lane when I was picking up my father in Indianapolis in our 49 Ford. Put a large impression of the Cady's left rear fender in the Ford and a small dimple in the Cady. He pulled through the intersection and I followed. Got out of my car and approached his on the sidewalk, he leaned over and looked up at me through the passenger window and said plaintively, "CAN'T YOU SEE A THING AS BIG AS A CAR?" What a stopper of a question. Never had a chance to use it fortunately. 

[Euclid]

 

Well with all the reasoning here that there was not any emergency that required dumping the air, I was just thinking that the best excuse for not dumping the air might have been that there was no emergency.  I seem to recall somebody here saying that there was no emergency until the last few seconds when the bed fell back onto the track.  But prior to that, the engineer thought he was seeing buzzards on the track, needed time to see more clearly, thought the people were railfans and would get out of the way, etc, etc.  

 

[Norm48327]

Deggesty

Norm, I'm with you.

Thanks Johnny.