Midland, Texas case against UP dismissed or: "Look At This Idiot"

[greyhounds]

http://www.oaoa.com/news/article_7e185f6c-b23c-11e4-938a-8f9c5fc6e8e5.html

 

[seppburgh2]

Is the arugment the train crew failed to take proper action during the time it took to say these words?  That is how the news item reads for me.

[tree68]

seppburgh2

Is the arugment the train crew failed to take proper action during the time it took to say these words?  That is how the news item reads for me.

I would opine that the "basis" for the suit is that the crew didn't get the train stopped before the crossing, therefore must have done something wrong...  

I would also opine that,since we don't know who uttered the words that perhaps it was the conductor, speaking to the engineer, who was already taking appropriate action.

[ricktrains4824]

It's a shame that the whole accident happened, but even more shameful that they (attorney's and media) are trying to blame the train crew. They are not the ones who drove a parade float onto active railroad tracks ignoring a crossing signal clearly indicating a train was approaching.... (I recall something about a police squad car dash-camera showing that the signals were flashing before the truck started across, and in plenty of time to a avoid the accident under normal operating conditions. A stupid driver stopping a parade float on the tracks is anything but normal.) Where is the attorney's suit against the city parade planners, or the truck driver, or against anyone other than the RR that was not guilty of anything other than doing their daily job, running trains? The parade planners never even got city approval for that route, let alone never did their due diligence in informing the RR of said parade... This whole thing, tragically, would have been avoided had they done their jobs and gotten said approval and informed the RR of their plans. Then, they would have either had a chance to hold back the train short of town, or at least warned the crew of it so they were slow enough to do something about the problem. And the complaint that someone on the train called them an idiot? Easy. That guy was an idiot for driving onto th tracks with a parade float! Actually, the crew could have been a whole lot more "colorful" than just idiot.... Let's all place the blame where it really belongs here, not on the one with the deepest pockets.... Typical sleezy attempt to get someone money for something that happened, instead of seekin justice over it. Money will not bring back their loved ones, or help the train crew though their traumatic experience of killing multiple people when they had zero control over the situation. For the attorney's to then try to blame them for it is just flat out wrong.

[BaltACD]

Typical shysterism.  Sue the 'deep pocket' instead of those that are actually responsible for causing the incident.

Thought is was ripe that the plaintiff lawyers did not want to be named in the final judgement.

[Deggesty]

I wonder: did the families of the men who died call on the "lawyer(s)", or did the "lawyer(s)" call on the families?

If the "lawyer(s)" began the suit, they should be disbarred for being unable to think.

[wanswheel]

It’s not entirely over because the appeals court could decide for a retrial.

http://www.mrt.com/news/article_ea958166-afb1-11e4-9758-1325d2983868.html

[rrnut282]

Deg,

Oh, I'm sure someone, either the lawyers or the families thought, something along the lines of "show me the money".  It's just that they thought wrong.

 

At least the judge was thinking more clearly.

[Euclid]

I am not sure if I understand the point here, but this is how I interpret it:

The plaintiff’s attorney contends that the train crew was distracted.  He bases that contention on the fact that the engineer said “Look at that idiot.”  The engineer was referring to the first float which made it across okay.  It was the second float that got hit by the train. 

So by referring to the first float driver as “that idiot,” it shows that the engineer was paying close attention to the first float, and therefore, could not have been paying attention to the second float. 

Is that the correct interpretation of the lawyer’s legal theory?  

[BaltACD]

I view the plaintiff lawyers theory as throwing a Hail Mary pass and hoping for a pass interference call - without ever expecting to have the pass completed or even having a receiver in the same zip code as the ball, and then hoping for his QB to get tackled after the pass was released when no defender was within 10 yards of the QB.

[rdamon]

BaltACD

I view the plaintiff lawyers theory as throwing a Hail Mary pass and hoping for a pass interference call - without ever expecting to have the pass completed or even having a receiver in the same zip code as the ball, and then hoping for his QB to get tackled after the pass was released when no defender was within 10 yards of the QB.

 

 

All at $500 per hour.

[tree68]

All too often, plaintiffs (or their lawyers) go after the deep pockets - in this case, UP.  

And all too often, said deep pocket simply settles since it's cheaper than going to trial.  

In this case, UP felt they had the advantage and fought the claim.  And won.

Of course, the plaintiffs (or their attorneys) will appeal.  Hopefully said appeal will be summarily dismissed.

I'm certainly sorry for the loss of their loved ones, as are all involved.  

[rdamon]

26 of 43 did settle ..

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/01/16/26-settle-suit-in-2012-texas-veterans-parade-crash-that-killed-4/

[wanswheel]

Discussion of the warning time was not allowed, I guess. Perhaps it would be in a retrial.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Midland-warning-seen-as-too-brief-4074242.php

[NorthWest]

Perhaps the lawyers think that because the first float crossed the tracks, the train crew should have expected more floats and stopped the train?

[diningcar]

The Brits have the solution: If you sue and loose you pay the other parties total costs of the litigation.

[samfp1943]

wanswheel

Discussion of the warning time was not allowed, I guess. Perhaps it would be in a retrial.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Midland-warning-seen-as-too-brief-4074242.php

 

 

The Judge, probably also, banned any conversations about the Engineer or Conductor not steering the train out of the crossing to avoid the collision???

[tree68]

diningcar

The Brits have the solution: If you sue and lose you pay the other parties total costs of the litigation.

Amen.  If that was the case and someone sued me on some frivolous (or otherwise baseless) matter, I'd hire the most expensive lawyer I could.  Could come back and bite me, but they'd certainly feel the sting when they lost.

It would put an end to folks who are serial "suers."  Like the lady who sued over a basketball hoop (and the resultant dribbling of the ball) several houses from hers - and won.  It was one of many suits she initiated, most of which simply settled.  She was making pretty good money on the racket...

That's not to say that people who sue never have legitimate cases (oftimes they do), but I think that if one was to try to file a loser of a case, their lawyer might suggest what they stood to lose if they lost.

[wanswheel]

Excerpt from "Plaintiffs' Original Petition..."

http://extras.mysanantonio.com/pdf/TrainWreck_Lawsuit_Petition.pdf

The occurrence described in this petition is a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Railroad:

a. In failing to provide a reasonable and timely audible warning of an approaching train;

b. In failing to provide a reasonable and timely visual warning of an approaching train;

c. In failing to provide a safe railroad crossing;

d. In failing to apply the brakes or otherwise slow the train;

e. In failing to keep a proper lookout;

f. In failing to remedy the hazardous conditions posed by this grade crossing that existed for an extended period of time;

g. In routinely ignoring the hazardous conditions posed by this grade crossing;

h. In failing to protect the crossing by issuing a slow order for rail traffic;

i. In failing to recognize that the conditions readily apparent at this crossing created “an essentially local safety hazard;”

j. In failing to properly train and instruct its crew;

k. In failing to properly maintain the railroad crossing;

l. In failing to work with State and local authorities to establish an open line of communication and in failing to engage in any effort to evaluate the crossing conditions and characteristics;

m. In failing to maintain adequate warning devices;

n. In failing to provide a sufficient warning;

o. In failing to implement effective Employee Notification Rules to Report Warning Signal Malfunctions;

p. In failing to timely investigate and determine the nature of the crossing signal malfunction of this grade crossing;

q. In failing to provide alternative means of warning highway traffic while crossing was malfunctioning;

r. In failing to promptly initiate efforts to warn highway users of a malfunction with the crossing;

s. In failing to notify the train crew of the activation failure at this crossing;

t. In failing to notify local law enforcement with jurisdiction over the crossing, of the need to respond and control vehicular traffic;

u. In failing to provide alternative means of actively warning highway users of approaching trains;

v. In failing to provide a flagger at this crossing;

w. In failing to slow trains or stop them prior to entering the crossing;

x. In failing to keep legible, correct signal system circuit plans at the crossing warning system location;

y. In failing to maintain the rail crossing warning system within the limits within which the system was designed to operate;

z. In failing to determine the failure of the crossing to perform its intended function and in failing to adjust, repair or replace the component without undue delay;

aa. In failing to maintain the railroad crossing to activate in accordance with the design of the warning system; and

bb. In failing to properly test the crossing warning system at least once every twelve months and to test any modifications to the system because of a change in train speed.

[Deggesty]

The lawyers who wrote that should be stripped of every diploma that was given to them, and disbarred for lack of evidence that they had any education.

[ricktrains4824]

I find it funny that the plaintiffs are blaming the crossing signals not functioning correctly, when the NTSB stated that the issue was created by the parade planners.... Never will happen, but UP should sue the parade planners, the city, and countersue the plaintiffs attorney's, for I'm sure that the train crew also is suffering from "bad PTSD" as the one person stated. The NTSB blamed the parade planners for not doing their due diligence, so, I, for one, applaud the judge from this trial, for he clearly does not follow the "show me the money" thinking that is such a issue anymore.... Hopefully the appeals judge sees the same. The NTSB is not owned by any RR, Airline, automotive manufacturer, etc.... If the RR (UP) was at fault in any way, no matter how slight, the NTSB would have said so. They did not. Yes, it's sad that people got hurt, or died, but, the train crew is not to blame... Unless they had one of those new special "sneaky" trains that jump out of the bushes and attack you.... But, they did not. Yes, I feel bad for those victims. But I count as victims the train crew also. Blaming the victims, does zero good here. Otherwise, the people in the parade should have seen the "essentially local safety hazard" of the grade crossing, and not crossed it in the first place. They all could see, and unless they live on another planet, should be able to logically assume, that train tracks means train. Otherwise, there would not be tracks, or a grade crossing, present.

[JayPotter]

I read the two posts in which Deggesty discussed disbarrment of the plaintiffs' attorneys.  They left me with a hypothetical question that I want to ask him.

Deggesty, assume that this case ends up going to trial and you're called for jury duty in it.  And assume that, during the juror qualification process, the judge asks you if you would be able fairly and objectively to consider the evidence that's presented by both sides during the trial.  Would you tell the judge that you would be able to do this or that you would not be able to do this?

 

[tree68]

wanswheel

Excerpt from "Plaintiffs' Original Petition..."

Some of those would be FRA violations (and, I would opine, highly unlikely).  And many would be refutable just by pulling out the rulebook.

Several are wholly laughable, and 'd' ignores the laws of physics.  Not to mention a couple of duplicates, worded differently.

And the "look at that idiot" comment is a pretty good indication that the crew was paying attention...

[samfp1943]

Deggesty

The lawyers who wrote that should be stripped of every diploma that was given to them, and disbarred for lack of evidence that they had any education.

 

 

     Too many Lawyers these days...Everyone looking for s "suit" to hang the rest of their lives on...Just look at the various Medical Mal-practice and " Bad Drug" actions that seem to happen..   Then, there are the various "Product-liability" actions for almost every item immaginable...  America (?) seems to have returned to a "Legal Wild West", and 'Gold Rush' mentality.  Lawyers like "49ers" are the new prospectors; everyone looking for their own pot of gold.   

Lawyers that can't make it practicing law seem to go into politics.. Maybe that is the new" Gold Rush" ? [my2c] 

[samfp1943]

tree68

 

wanswheel

Excerpt from "Plaintiffs' Original Petition..."

 

 

Some of those would be FRA violations (and, I would opine, highly unlikely).  And many would be refutable just by pulling out the rulebook.

Several are wholly laughable, and 'd' ignores the laws of physics.  Not to mention a couple of duplicates, worded differently.

And the "look at that idiot" comment is a pretty good indication that the crew was paying attention...

 

  To what Mike (wanswheel) noted in his post:

c. In failing to provide a safe railroad crossing; (see note below)

d. In failing to apply the brakes or otherwise slow the train;  (Laws of Physica here apply)

e. In failing to keep a proper lookout; ( Train's Brakes do not automatically apply, unlike some systems in automobiles?)

Just three of the items mentioned are exactly as Larry(tree68) noted:

"...Some of those would be FRA violations (and, I would opine, highly unlikely).  And many would be refutable just by pulling out the rulebook..."

(c.) There have been didcussions on  Highway/Rail grade Crossings on a number of occasions in Threads on these Forums before.   A crossing is regulated by not only Federal (C.F.R.), but backed by State regulatory parameters as well. 

(H/R Crossings)They are funded by any number of involved local political entities; with each putting 'their stamp of approval,and compliances on those plans and their implementation.    The Funding is then established, and funds furnished to the involved railroad who (many times(?) pays for the equipment provided; builds the installation of the Active Crossing Mechanisms, and then is the maintaining entity, as long as the crossing is needed. (?) 

[Euclid]

tree68

..."And the "look at that idiot" comment is a pretty good indication that the crew was paying attention...

 

I think their point is that the “Look at that idiot” comment does prove that the engineer was paying attention to the float.  It is believed that comment was directed to the first float because that float was on the crossing when the engineer made the comment.  So the conclusion is that since the engineer was paying attention to the first float, he could not have been paying attention to the second float.  It was the second float that they hit. 

 

[Norm48327]

Euclid

 

 

tree68

..."And the "look at that idiot" comment is a pretty good indication that the crew was paying attention...

 

 

 

I think their point is that the “Look at that idiot” comment does prove that the engineer was paying attention to the float.  It is believed that comment was directed to the first float because that float was on the crossing when the engineer made the comment.  So the conclusion is that since the engineer was paying attention to the first float, he could not have been paying attention to the second float.  It was the second float that they hit. 

 

 

I would sure like to know the mental process you used to reach that conclusion.

[Euclid]

Norm,

The conclusion is based on this:  If you are looking at "A", you can't be looking at "B".

But I must clarify that this conclusion in this case is not my conclusion. I believe it is the conclusion of the attorney. 

[mikeyuhas]

Perhaps railroaders on this forum can answer this. In the past, locomotive video recorders had been reported to be configured such that audio was  captured along with the video, but that the microphone was external, to record sounds of the bell and whistle (and crash)... not the sounds of the crewmembers talking. The reports about the evidence of one crewmember calling the parade float driver an idiot seems to contradict that idea. So the question - do outward-facing locomotive cameras today routinely record audio from inside the cab?

[tree68]

Euclid

The conclusion is based on this:  If you are looking at "A", you can't be looking at "B".

But I must clarify that this conclusion in this case is not my conclusion. I believe it is the conclusion of the attorney. 

On the other hand, if the engineer is looking at the first float going over the crossing, he's still paying attention to the crossing, which would be the appropriate thing to do.  

While assuming anything gets us in the usual trouble, one might assume that someone driving a semi, especially one loaded with people, would see and heed the crossing signals, thus not entering the crossing.  

The crewmember's comment would seem to indicate that he was incredulous that the first flatbed would foul the crossing as it did.  I'm sure that even stronger language (or thoughts) accompanied the discovery that the second semi then fouled the crossing.