SHERBROOKE, Quebec — Not guilty. Jurors in the criminal trial of three railroaders charged in the deaths of 47 people acquitted the three Canadian men Friday afternoon. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reports that the jury of eight men and four w...
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/01/19-lac-megantic
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
I could see it looming. The longer the deliberations, and with knowing which types of clarification or definition the jury sought from the judge a few days back, they were struggling with what a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances and with the indoctrination and culture to which they had been exposed. The jury decided nobody intended malice, and that nobody was deliberately negligent or wilfully contravened established norms/practices.
There will be much anger and many tears over this decision.
selectorI could see it looming. The longer the deliberations, and with knowing which types of clarification or definition the jury sought from the judge a few days back, they were struggling with what a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances and with the indoctrination and culture to which they had been exposed. The jury decided nobody intended malice, and that nobody was deliberately negligent or wilfully contravened established norms/practices. There will be much anger and many tears over this decision.
While I agree with your assessment of the virdict. I believe the jury errored in assuming Harding as a 'reasonable person'. Harding, as the Engineer and only train service person in charge of the train, has to be presumed to be a Expert in his field and held to a higher level of responsibility than the 'reasonable person'.
The other persons charged had no direct ability to have prevented the incident as they were many miles away and had no ability to touch the equipment and thereby prevent the incident.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I have had my own anxiety just reading all the postings on the forum. I think the decision is fair - each man will continue thru their own personal nightmares for the rest of their life.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
23 17 46 11
edblysardWould Harding know to do anything different than what was done, or was he following accepted practice and procedures?
My understanding is that Harding got his Engineers qualification when he was employed by CP. That being said, I don't know what CP's teachings were on what was required to properly secure trains. I would presume that CP had more stringent standards than MM&A enforced as evidenced by Harding's runaway on the MM&A.
A Tired Quote-- "Each man will continue thru their own personal nightmares for the rest of their life". So will the families of the 47 killed. (don't even think about the fire they were killed in) They will not see any justice in this decision.
matthewsaggie A Tired Quote-- "Each man will continue thru their own personal nightmares for the rest of their life". So will the families of the 47 killed. (don't even think about the fire they were killed in) They will not see any justice in this decision.
BaltACD edblysard Would Harding know to do anything different than what was done, or was he following accepted practice and procedures? My understanding is that Harding got his Engineers qualification when he was employed by CP. That being said, I don't know what CP's teachings were on what was required to properly secure trains. I would presume that CP had more stringent standards than MM&A enforced as evidenced by Harding's runaway on the MM&A.
edblysard Would Harding know to do anything different than what was done, or was he following accepted practice and procedures?
Loose or sloppy work cultures can have a corrosive effect on those involved over time, no matter the training. I wonder if that is why targetted safety cultures are (re)introduced over time. A reinforcement of perhaps forgotten or sloppy safety practices and ways of operational thinking.
That said, I would think Mr Harding will carry a heavy burden for the rest of his life, as will the others. I also won't be surprised if more lawsuits are forthcoming from Megantic townspeople.
Charlie
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...
A lot of the blame should go to the fire department for shutting down the engine. They should have known that with no power to keep the brakes set that eventually they would loose braking. They should have set more hand brakes after shutting down the engine to prevent a runaway.
I am glad that at least the engineer, Mr. Harding was aquitted. I feel that he was being made a scape goat for the failures of other persons.
caldreamerA lot of the blame should go to the fire department for shutting down the engine. They should have known that with no power to keep the brakes set that eventually they would loose braking.
Respectfully disagree. Although one of our posters here is both an engineer and a volunteer firefighter, just how much training would you believe small volunteer fire departments in very rural areas have regarding securing a train.
Norm
caldreamerA lot of the blame should go to the fire department for shutting down the engine.
Nope. Absolutely not. Unless they've been trained by the railroad in how they secure their trains, the firefighters would have absolutely no clue. They apparently had some training (or were told by someone at the time - I forget now) that enabled them to shut down the locomotive.
Even if they did have training on how the railroad secured trains, it probably would have been by the book - which I am surmising would have involved setting the handbrakes on numerous cars in the consist. If that were the case, they absolutely would not have known that only the independent brakes on the locomotive and handbrakes on two other cars were holding the train. Their assumption would have been that there were enough other brakes set to hold the train.
When a couple of cars got away at a military installation near me, one individual jumped onto the cars just as they began to move - but he had no idea how to set the handbrake. If he had, there would not have been a runaway.
caldreamer A lot of the blame should go to the fire department for shutting down the engine. They should have known .....
A lot of the blame should go to the fire department for shutting down the engine. They should have known .....
I think many people who have walked past an engine on the way to/from their car have a good idea of how to shut it down.
It seems to me that this method of (inadequate) securement probably was common practice on this line. Otherwise, the new crew would have noticed a difference between Harding secured trains and those of others, and reported it to someone.
From the linked article: "When the prosecution rested in December, the defendants announced that they would not present any evidence or witnesses."
Gutsy move. What it means is that even with the jury giving maximum credibility to all the evidence the prosecution presented - none of which was rebutted by opposing testimony or other evidence - the prosecution still didn't prove its case. Roughly the same as the O.J. Simpson verdict (for those who remember it).
- PDN.
caldreamerA lot of the blame should go to the fire department for shutting down the engine. They should have known that with no power to keep the brakes set that eventually they would loose braking. They should have set more hand brakes after shutting down the engine to prevent a runaway. I am glad that at least the engineer, Mr. Harding was aquitted. I feel that he was being made a scape goat for the failures of other persons.
Where Fire Departments get any form of training from the carriers - the first thing the FD's are instructed to do when they encounter a locomotive fire is to activate the Emergency Fuel Shutoff. FD's are not trained railroaders and should not have to concern themselves as to a train without crew aboard has been properly secured.
Fire Departments put out fires. Railroad employees SECURE trains.
Paul_D_North_JrFrom the linked article: "When the prosecution rested in December, the defendants announced that they would not present any evidence or witnesses." Gutsy move. What it means is that even with the jury giving maximum credibility to all the evidence the prosecution presented - none of which was rebutted by opposing testimony or other evidence - the prosecution still didn't prove its case. Roughly the same as the O.J. Simpson verdict (for those who remember it). - PDN.
I suspect it also means that the Defense felt it has done a more than adequate job of shredding the prosecutions evidence and statements on cross.
caldreamer A lot of the blame should go to the fire department for shutting down the engine. They should have known that with no power to keep the brakes set that eventually they would loose braking. They should have set more hand brakes after shutting down the engine to prevent a runaway. I am glad that at least the engineer, Mr. Harding was aquitted. I feel that he was being made a scape goat for the failures of other persons.
Houston Ed: I should have you write my narratives for me. They seem to understand you, while I seem to be speaking Venutian....which would be right, wouldn't it...?
I am kind of surprised that they did not acquit two of them, but convict Harding of unsafe operation of railway equipment.
Going forward, it seems to me that despite the percieved health of the engines (even if they seem perfect), by rule at least two engines should always be left running if air brakes are needed. Any machine can fail. If only one engine is in use on a train, the hand brake requirements should be much more robust, with the assumption that one air-compressor could suddenly become none.
BTW, I have read that Harding still faces some charges; but I've not been able to find more details/explanation on this.
Still in training.
LithoniaOperator I am kind of surprised that they did not acquit two of them, but convict Harding of unsafe operation of railway equipment. Going forward, it seems to me that despite the percieved health of the engines (even if they seem perfect), by rule at least two engines should always be left running if air brakes are needed. Any machine can fail. If only one engine is in use on a train, the hand brake requirements should be much more robust, with the assumption that one air-compressor could suddenly become none. BTW, I have read that Harding still faces some charges; but I've not been able to find more details/explanation on this.
I'm sure Randy Stahl can supply the details of federal charges. OTOH, I believe Harding and his supervisors were working under the assumption that leaving the lone engine running to supply air to the brake system had always been accepted practice so why change the plan.
What I fail to understand is why, when Harding told the dispatcher the engine was "wet-stacking and spitting oil" the dispatcher told him to leave it running as the sole support of air for the brakes.
I can't tell you how many times someone has said to me "We've done it that way for thirty years and it's always worked; why change".
Whether Harding had any malintent is moot. The question facing the jury was whether he broke any laws. Given the verdict it appears he did not.
There is fault enough to go around. It was the typical chain of events that led to the disaster, but it is likely no laws were broken in the process. Best practices were not followed and led to the death of 47 people but that does not make the accused guilty except in public opinion.
I would say that the judge was correct when he said that the Crown had not proven their case. The question was whether Harding broke the law against criminal negligence. To find him guilty of that, the prosecution would have had to have introtuded evidence related to what a reasonable person might anticipate in regard to securing the train.
There is no quesiton that Harding broke the securment rules, but perhaps the prosecution never introduced evidence that Harding was aware of breaking those rules. If Harding merely forgot the rules or never learned them, that cancels the possiblity of upholding a charge of criminal negligence. If Harding thought he was properly securing the train, he could not have antipated that he was putting people in danger. Criminal negligence requires that the defendant was able to anticpate the danger and went ahead anyway, taking the chance.
[quote user=
"Norm48327"]Whether Harding had any malintent is moot.
The question facing the jury was whether he broke any laws.
Given the verdict it appears he did not."
Norm48327, further stated: 'There is fault enough to go around. It was the typical chain of events that led to the disaster, but it is likely no laws were broken in the process. Best practices were not followed and led to the death of 47 people but that does not make the accused guilty except in public opinion."
[/quote]
My only question is :" Under the French code of Napoleonic Law; "is there a protectuion from double jeopardy"?
The whole chain of circumstances in this event seems to bring into focus the old railroader's axiom: [paraphrased] " The GCOR is written in the blood of its rules and regulations."
EuclidI would say that the judge was correct when he said that the Crown had not proven their case.
That became self evident when the jury was at an impasse. The judge ordered them to continue so they decided "Not guilty" should be the verdict. Any jury worthy of their salt should tell the prosecution they have not sufficiently made their case that the accused violated a law.EuclidThere is no quesiton that Harding broke the securment rules EuclidThere is no quesiton that Harding broke the securment rules,
EuclidThere is no quesiton that Harding broke the securment rules
EuclidThere is no quesiton that Harding broke the securment rules,
DId he, or was he following accepted practice that had always worked before? I believe he was simply following orders from above. While that may reflect on the safety culture of the road he worked on did not make him guilty of violating any Canadian law.
I can empatize with the denizens of Lac Megantic. In my lifetime I have lost many friends who died early starting while I was in grade school. Their loss of life at an early age and the effect on me and their parents remains in my mind forever. Rember Polio? Nope, I think you are too young to have been there when it took many lives and affected others.
That said, some things are just beyond our ability to control and to suggest otherwise just emphasises that you have only your own interests in mind.
Time for a reality check.
Sam,
I am not familiar with Canadian law but under the assumption it follows the course of old English law. The exception to that is that under the kings reigns guilty till proven innocent took a serious and needed turn.
Accusations are just that and are not proven accurate until proven in a court of law.
Norm48327 Euclid I would say that the judge was correct when he said that the Crown had not proven their case. That became self evident when the jury was at an impasse. The judge ordered them to continue so they decided "Not guilty" should be the verdict. Any jury worthy of their salt should tell the prosecution they have not sufficiently made their case that the accused violated a law. Euclid There is no quesiton that Harding broke the securment rules Euclid There is no quesiton that Harding broke the securment rules, DId he, or was he following accepted practice that had always worked before? I believe he was simply following orders from above. While that may reflect on the safety culture of the road he worked on did not make him guilty of violating any Canadian law. I can empatize with the denizens of Lac Megantic. In my lifetime I have lost many friends who died early starting while I was in grade school. Their loss of life at an early age and the effect on me and their parents remains in my mind forever. Rember Polio? Nope, I think you are too young to have been there when it took many lives and affected others. That said, some things are just beyond our ability to control and to suggest otherwise just emphasises that you have only your own interests in mind. Time for a reality check.
Euclid I would say that the judge was correct when he said that the Crown had not proven their case.
That became self evident when the jury was at an impasse. The judge ordered them to continue so they decided "Not guilty" should be the verdict. Any jury worthy of their salt should tell the prosecution they have not sufficiently made their case that the accused violated a law.
Euclid There is no quesiton that Harding broke the securment rules
Euclid There is no quesiton that Harding broke the securment rules,
Norm,
The last time I checked reality, it was still there.
My understanding is that Harding failed to set enough handbrakes to hold train without the aid of air brakes. That is a violation of Rule 112. He also performed a handbrake effectiveness test with the independent brake set. That too is a violation of Rule 112.
If Harding was following practice that had worked before, that does not mean that he did not violate Rule 112.
In case anyone is intersted in my viewpoint, I have to agree Harding broke Rule 112, which I understand really has the power of law. I would have ruled guilty for all and recommendation of clemency on the basis of lack of management enforcement of the law and lack of safety culture, with a recommendation for sentence reduced to time served awaiting trial. The Crown did not have to prove its case because the defendents admitted lack of observance of rule 112 and lack of enforcement by the othe two. That is my opinion for whatever is worth.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.