Trains.com

Amtrak Engineman Train 188 Sues

1628 views
7 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2015
  • From: Sharon, PA
  • 44 posts
Amtrak Engineman Train 188 Sues
Posted by SAMUEL C WALKER on Friday, January 27, 2017 9:41 PM

Here is link about Brandon Bastion: http://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/01/27/brandon-bostian-amtrak-lawsuit/ 

Suit claims that but for lack of lineside security permitting trains to be hit by rocks the series of events leading to the derailment would not have happened. Bastion claims his train was hit by projectiles.

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/01/27/brandon-bostian-amtrak-lawsuit/

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,476 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, January 30, 2017 7:52 AM

This may not be quite what everybody thinks.  Workers' compensation laws do not apply to railroaders and existing law requires that they file suit for compensation.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, January 30, 2017 9:18 AM

The NTSB report does not support Bastian's legal theory.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 24,931 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Monday, January 30, 2017 11:23 AM

schlimm
The NTSB report does not support Bastian's legal theory.

Not entirely - as Bastian references another train being struck by projectiles in the area and the road channel radio traffic about that strike.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • 4,190 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Monday, January 30, 2017 2:17 PM

Is it possible the lawyer hasn't been paid, and the client is too poor to pay?

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: South Dakota
  • 1,592 posts
Posted by Dakguy201 on Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:29 AM

I think CSSHEGEWISCH is correct, and this is nothing more than what is required in the absence of a workers' compensation system.   If I were a rail union member, I'd be asking my union officials hard questions regarding the relationship between themselves and the lawyers who specialize in such litigation.  Should no relationship exist, I would want to know why they don't negotiate an end to the system.   

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 2,593 posts
Posted by PNWRMNM on Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:49 AM

Dakguy201

If I were a rail union member, I'd be asking my union officials hard questions regarding the relationship between themselves and the lawyers who specialize in such litigation.  Should no relationship exist, I would want to know why they don't negotiate an end to the system.    

It is common knowledge in the industry that the relationship between the unions and the plaintiff's bar is a cozy one. I believe money changes hands with some degree of regularity, but no one with knowledge is stupid enough to talk.

If the unions want to end the current system, and I am not aware of evidence that they do, they would have to get Federal Law changed in addition to negotiating with the carriers. I believe the carriers would agree in an instant.

Mac

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:14 PM

BaltACD

 

 
schlimm
The NTSB report does not support Bastian's legal theory.

 

Not entirely - as Bastian references another train being struck by projectiles in the area and the road channel radio traffic about that strike.

 

Bastian contends his engine and he were struck.  The investaigation does not support that theory.  I fail to see why the union should support Bastian's criminal negligence.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy