Ambulance Chaser ...
https://www.millerinjury.com/
Dschick1Do you know John Miller? Do you know John Miller?
Dschick1,
From your profile:
"West coast member of O gauge train clubs. I favor SP, WP, MP,and eastern road names. Seeking members who have been fraudulently rodeo of their trains by John Miller, Folsom, CA and SanDiego, CA"
Who is John Miller and what does he have to do with this thread?
A pilot crashed here in the Twin Cities and NTSB blamed it on pilot control of the plane. The jury didn't see that and was swayed by a questionable expert who claimed the fuel pump was faulty. (The expert had never evaluated fuel pumps.) Lycoming was found guilty for the fuel pump and ordered to pay $27M. The pilot lived but lost a foot. A judge just overturned this award after exposing the expert as a fraud becuase the pump had worked flawlessly for 300 hours prior. Another example of our legal system designed to make lawyers and clients rich.
The verdict in the CSX case will be overturned by further courts, but is an example of a system out of control.
Everyone who has posted in this thread knows this John Miller better than you, Daniel.
Do You?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
GREG HODGES I have culled through these 485 comments , and while not reading each one, feel that words spoken (typed ?) by "Norm" make, by far, the most sense....."simply a sympthetic jury awarding the agrived settlement money..... Several terms also come to mind: "Ambulance chasers" "Deep Pockets "Tort reform" Cheers.
I have culled through these 485 comments , and while not reading each one, feel that words spoken (typed ?) by "Norm" make, by far, the most sense....."simply a sympthetic jury awarding the agrived settlement money.....
Several terms also come to mind:
"Ambulance chasers"
"Deep Pockets
"Tort reform"
Cheers.
The situation involving lawsuits affects some industries much more than it does the RR's. Freight RR's actually have an advantage in that they don't deal directly with consumers.
The legal system has almost decimated the general aviation/small aircraft industry. Everytime there's an accident, regardless of weather, pilot error, etc., the aircraft manufacturer ends up paying the tab. They did end up getting a statute of limitations passed based on aircraft age that has limited the lawsuits to some extent.
daveklepper BL: Thanks for a thorough summary of the situation. As I noted with respect to the bus stop tragedy, I essentially learned this lesson yesterday morning, with the bus stop tragedy an extreme case of what you are discussing. The transit authority obviously did not sue the drunk driver, which is a possible analogy for CSX suing Miller. I appreciate your precision in laying out the legal situation in the USA so clearly. Is Canada similar, identicle?
BL: Thanks for a thorough summary of the situation. As I noted with respect to the bus stop tragedy, I essentially learned this lesson yesterday morning, with the bus stop tragedy an extreme case of what you are discussing. The transit authority obviously did not sue the drunk driver, which is a possible analogy for CSX suing Miller.
I appreciate your precision in laying out the legal situation in the USA so clearly. Is Canada similar, identicle?
I can't speak for Canada, and as for the US, my views are strictly those of a layperson with an interest in the law. I try to stay objective and look at these cases in relation to how the legal system works. Most decisions by courts are based upon decisions in previous cases. Right or wrong, when someone gets injured or killed, everyone involved in some way is going to end up being a defendent in a civil suit. Big corporations like CSX know this, and consider it a cost of doing business. If trespass cases were that important to the RR's, they would make their property more difficult to breach. That cost would exceed what they pay out in judgments, so they leave their ROW's and equipment unsecured and deal with the court cases.
Mr. Klepper--Everything you say about Miller is true, it's that your suggested legal solutions don't follow logic. First of all, you seem to have some confusion between criminal and civil law. Miller has already been charged, convicted, and served time. If CSX had wanted to include it's own criminal charges against Miller, it should have done it when the original charges were filed. But, such additional charges would be iffy. I'm not an attorney, but from what I can find, there's no criminal statutes concerning interfering with and endangering train crews. The closest I can find is the federal law concerning interfering with flight crews. I suppose in a broad application of the law, it could be applied to all operators of commercial transit. It hasn't been though, as aviation has certain unique characteristics that don't apply to surface transportation.
If the law is extended to railroaders, next in line is the truckers, cab drivers, ferries, etc. So we get to the point that all commercial transit is protected in a way that we protect emergency vehicles and other operators of high priority movements.
I don't know what else you want done with Miller. They aren't going to re-arrest him. The court has already spoken. He served a year in jail, with 10 years probation, and is barred from working in the film industry. My guess is the civil judgment already squeezed as much as they can out of Miller's bank account.
Avid railfans and railroaders, often have a very pro railroad bias, that extends to their world view. That is not necessarily the view of the public and the legal system.
My thoughts are that this accident and subsequent legal actions, are far more of a concern to many of the participants in this thread, than they are to CSX. Such accidents are quite numerable. This one is high profile because it involved the film industry. While the details usually don't involve movie props and film industry workers, the end result of railroad trespass involving personal injury and death are the same. These incidents are frequent enough, that I believe the railroads see the civil judgments as a cost of doing business. A cost much cheaper than securing their property from trespass the way other large corporations and government entities do.
EuclidI seem to recall somebody here saying that there was no emergency until the last few seconds when the bed fell back onto the track.
I said the engineer perhaps realized the real danger only when the bed fell back.
If they had left the bed and ran for their lifes there is real good chance nothing but great schock might have happened. Perhaps the train crew expected this to happen. But they decided differently.
The film crew wasn't informed that they were trespassing so they never considered any emergencies.Regards, Volker
Deggesty Norm, I'm with you.
Norm, I'm with you.
Thanks Johnny.
Norm
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68You 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.
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.
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
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).
When you try to save a bed, rather than yourself you are a legal disaster.
BaltACDThe 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 ..... All to save a bed!
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.)
EuclidJurors 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.
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.
Johnny
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!
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.