vsmith Placing decking on the adjacent track is not a guarentee anyone would have used it, these girls and others could just as easily use the tracks anyways, also by decking it the RR by action condones the tresspassing and as such assumes liability for any accidents that might occur on it, again its a no-win for the RR to do such a thing.
Placing decking on the adjacent track is not a guarentee anyone would have used it, these girls and others could just as easily use the tracks anyways, also by decking it the RR by action condones the tresspassing and as such assumes liability for any accidents that might occur on it, again its a no-win for the RR to do such a thing.
I don’t see how there are any absolutes regarding this situation. A walkway might not have saved the lives of the three girls, but I think there is a high probability that it would have done just that. If people are going to trespass, I’ll bet that at least 90% of the time they spend on the trestle, they would be on the smooth plank walkway rather than walking on the ties just because of the difference in comfort. And if they are fouling the track when a train comes, it is the simplest and most intuitive reaction to simply step out of the way.
It is true that a walkway might invite trespassing. And it may be that some of that added trespassing might lead to additional liability. But in the long run, a walkway would reduce the overall liability, I think.
....in all of our discussion here on this tragedy.....I personally, have not suggested having a walk way or space off sets along the length of the structure is to enhance convience to tresspassers.
I'm simply saying such available space would be a 2nd chance for {anyone}, caught {legally or illegally}, out on such structure, to probably save their lives....Nothing more.
And of course, I suppose only on structures near populated areas and of certain lengthy spands.
Quentin
In this type of accident, the lawyers will spin it every way possible, catwalk or no catwalk. And in this particular case, if there is a lawsuit, it will not be difficult for the three young victims to gain the sympathy of a jury. The lawyers will argue the following:
1) The victims did not understand the hazard, and did not deserve to die simply for trespassing.
2) The FEC understood the hazard of a trestle and train speed combination that could make it impossible to escape death for anyone who walked across the trestle.
3) The FEC knew that people routinely crossed the trestle, and did not do enough to prevent people from doing so.
4) The FEC could have provided a safety walkway that would have prevented the deaths, but did not.
5) The signs were inadequate to convey the degree of hazard to those unfamiliar it.
6) The FEC provided signs that were intended to protect the public from the hazard, and yet they allowed the signs to become damaged, knocked down, and illegible.
7) Because the FEC applied no trespassing signs to the trestle and not to the rest of their trackage, it shows that they recognized the heightened hazard of the trestle.
Bucyrus Ted Marshall [Why would they do that when nobody's supposed to be on it anyway? So they could keep more of their money in their pockets.
Ted Marshall [Why would they do that when nobody's supposed to be on it anyway?
[Why would they do that when nobody's supposed to be on it anyway?
So they could keep more of their money in their pockets.
Oh, I see... Spend money to save money. Frankly, I don't see it.
Ted M.
got trains?™
See my photos at: http://tedmarshall.rrpicturearchives.net/
Ted Marshall Bucyrus Ted Marshall [Why would they do that when nobody's supposed to be on it anyway? So they could keep more of their money in their pockets. Oh, I see... Spend money to save money. Frankly, I don't see it.
The general idea is to spend $10,000 for a walkway to save $10 million in legal fees and a settlement on a lawsuit.
Bucyrus Ted Marshall Bucyrus Ted Marshall [Why would they do that when nobody's supposed to be on it anyway? So they could keep more of their money in their pockets. Oh, I see... Spend money to save money. Frankly, I don't see it. The general idea is to spend $10,000 for a walkway to save $10 million in legal fees and a settlement on a lawsuit.
And maybe even to save a life..
BucyrusThe general idea is to spend $10,000 for a walkway to save $10 million in legal fees and a settlement on a lawsuit.
10K times how many bridges?
10K is more than likely a very low number for such an installation not to mention the upkeep.
IIRC, wasn't there a thread a while back concerning a lawsuit over the condition of a walkway or decking on a railroad bridge? A board was broken and someone fell through?
Jay
The problem is that lawyers will sue on the chance that the RR will try to settle for something out of court just so they will go away, and something is what they are after, or that they can get a sympathetic jury and cash out on that sympathy.
I have seen where lawyers sued a utility on behalf of a kid who jumped a 12' barbed wire fence into a power substation, tried to steel some copper and turned into chicheronas, but the lawyer tried to argue that the utility didnt do enough to prevent the kid from getting in, so short of locking everything in a vault there is still a chance they will on some grounds, any grounds, no matter the illegality of the perps actions.
Its like when a burgler trip on something inside your house while they are burgelling it, gets hurt and hire a lawyer iwhile in jail to sue you for their injuries.
Have fun with your trains
its not even that, what will make the differance is where the court case is held, if it goes to federal court the parents wont win, if the parents lawyers get it thrown out of federal court and into state court then they have a big chance and most certainly a win. WHY you ask well simple in federal court the jury is usualy buisness type men and woman who look at things with logic. if it goes to state court then they get that crack head girl and some old drunk out of the double wide a few lonely house wifes and a few regulars down at the bar and grill. they set them in front of the defendant and feed them hard luck stories and shoulda, woulda, coulda and a few other things play on the feelings instead of logic and win for millions.
vsmith The problem is that lawyers will sue on the chance that the RR will try to settle for something out of court just so they will go away, and something is what they are after, or that they can get a sympathetic jury and cash out on that sympathy. I have seen where lawyers sued a utility on behalf of a kid who jumped a 12' barbed wire fence into a power substation, tried to steel some copper and turned into chicheronas, but the lawyer tried to argue that the utility didnt do enough to prevent the kid from getting in, so short of locking everything in a vault there is still a chance they will on some grounds, any grounds, no matter the illegality of the perps actions. Its like when a burgler trip on something inside your house while they are burgelling it, gets hurt and hire a lawyer iwhile in jail to sue you for their injuries.
There are lots of ways to get killed on a railroad, but when you compare all of them, there is nothing that comes close to the danger of a trestle with no escape from trains. With this particular hazard, the danger depends on how high and long the trestle is, how much train clearance there is, how fast the trains run, and the probable amount of audible warning of trains.
It is true that trestle walkways add cost, but equipping trestles with them is hardly a new proposal. Many railroads have used them just for the safety and convenience of their own employees, if not for the protection of trespassers. A friend of mine traveling out west met and had extensive conversation with a U.P. conductor who was on a personal crusade (in conjunction with the union) to force the U.P. to add railings to their trestles just to eliminate the fall hazard. If you go to the trouble and expense of adding a railing, you might as well add a couple feet of walkway for train clearance.
I don’t have first hand knowledge, but I once heard of an incident on the Milwaukee short line trestle over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis. In the fog one night, a trainman stepped off of the caboose of a stopped train. He did not realize that the caboose was standing on the trestle where it crosses over East River Road. So he stepped off the caboose and landed 50 feet below on the pavement of the road.
Here's another experiment you can try at home: Build a pool in your back yard. Erect a 6'-0" cyclone fence, w/ outriggers and a locked gate, around it. Post "No Trespassing" signs. Watch the neighborhood ambulance-chaser/tort lawyers salivating on your front lawn! You have, truly, created an "Attractive Nuisance" and the kids couldn't read (thanks, NEA/UFT) and just wanted to climb the fence for a cool swim. In Melbourne, the FEC could deed the extra bridge ROW to the city to erect a walkway, having the city assume all liability. That would enable the "taggers", a.k.a. "Little Darlings" (known to the school officials as Art Majors), to gain access to the bridge with their spray paint, and get it out of our hair. I would prefer that FEC (disclaimer: I am a RA stockholder) restore the second main on the bridge. We are, I hope, going to need the extra capacity shortly, and it is a bottleneck. Hmmm. Armed guards? I would volunteer, but what does Melbourne have cops for? I'll bet they still have parking meters, not to mention Dunkin' Donuts"! Great use of taxpayer's money!
Hays
So here we go again - all those lawyers are a bunch of slick shysters skilled in the arts of the Shadow and thus have the ability to cloud mens minds and all jurors are a bunch of brain damaged derelicts who couldn't reason there way out of a wet paper bag even if the instructions were printed on the inside...yeah rignt.
To recap some of the comments:
"I have seen where lawyers sued a utility on behalf of a kid who jumped a 12' barbed wire fence into a power substation, tried to steel some copper and turned into chicheronas, but the lawyer tried to argue that the utility didnt do enough to prevent the kid from getting in,"
That's interesting...and what happened? Ultimately who won that case? ...and how many other cases have there been just like it? ...and what was the final disposition of those cases?...and is this case in any way representative of a typical civil case? etc.
"what will make the differance is where the court case is held, if it goes to federal court the parents wont win, if the parents lawyers get it thrown out of federal court and into state court then they have a big chance and most certainly a win. WHY you ask well simple in federal court the jury is usualy buisness type men and woman who look at things with logic. if it goes to state court then they get that crack head girl and some old drunk out of the double wide a few lonely house wifes and a few regulars down at the bar and grill. they set them in front of the defendant and feed them hard luck stories and shoulda, woulda, coulda and a few other things play on the feelings instead of logic and win for millions."
Really? May we see the statistics for this? If you had ever served on any jury you would know that the above is simply not true. As I've said before, I've been in the box three times (not a lot but I suspect it is more than anyone else who has posted to this thread) at both the state and local level for both civil and criminal trials. Contrary to the above everything I experienced and witnessed says the system is very good and, for the vast majority of cases, works very well - bottom line - juries aren't that dumb and lawyers aren't omnipotent.
As for the situation that prompted this thread - I don't have an answer. What I do know is that the choice those three made was as bad as it gets and the nightmare impact their decision had on their relatives and the members of that train crew will last until everyone connected with them has passed away.
mersenne6As I've said before, I've been in the box three times (not a lot but I suspect it is more than anyone else who has posted to this thread) at both the state and local level for both civil and criminal trials. Contrary to the above everything I experienced and witnessed says the system is very good and, for the vast majority of cases, works very well - bottom line - juries aren't that dumb and lawyers aren't omnipotent.
However even if a company that has been sued believes that it has a 95% chance of convincing the jury that it did nothing wrong, if the person who sued was injured so severely that the jury award, if there is one, would likely reach $2 million, it makes a certain amount of sense for the company to try to settle the case for $100,000 (i.e. 5% of $2 million) plus the anticipated costs of trying the case. I'm not saying that most lawsuits have merit or that they don't have merit. I'm just suggesting that most of the money that is paid by companies that are sued is not paid because juries determined that the companies did something wrong. Most of it is paid, via settlements before juries are even involved, to avoid the risk that juries will find that they did something wrong.
mersenne6 So here we go again - all those lawyers are a bunch of slick shysters skilled in the arts of the Shadow and thus have the ability to cloud mens minds and all jurors are a bunch of brain damaged derelicts who couldn't reason there way out of a wet paper bag even if the instructions were printed on the inside...yeah rignt. To recap some of the comments: "I have seen where lawyers sued a utility on behalf of a kid who jumped a 12' barbed wire fence into a power substation, tried to steel some copper and turned into chicheronas, but the lawyer tried to argue that the utility didnt do enough to prevent the kid from getting in," That's interesting...and what happened? Ultimately who won that case? ...and how many other cases have there been just like it? ...and what was the final disposition of those cases?...and is this case in any way representative of a typical civil case? etc. "what will make the differance is where the court case is held, if it goes to federal court the parents wont win, if the parents lawyers get it thrown out of federal court and into state court then they have a big chance and most certainly a win. WHY you ask well simple in federal court the jury is usualy buisness type men and woman who look at things with logic. if it goes to state court then they get that crack head girl and some old drunk out of the double wide a few lonely house wifes and a few regulars down at the bar and grill. they set them in front of the defendant and feed them hard luck stories and shoulda, woulda, coulda and a few other things play on the feelings instead of logic and win for millions." Really? May we see the statistics for this? If you had ever served on any jury you would know that the above is simply not true. As I've said before, I've been in the box three times (not a lot but I suspect it is more than anyone else who has posted to this thread) at both the state and local level for both civil and criminal trials. Contrary to the above everything I experienced and witnessed says the system is very good and, for the vast majority of cases, works very well - bottom line - juries aren't that dumb and lawyers aren't omnipotent. As for the situation that prompted this thread - I don't have an answer. What I do know is that the choice those three made was as bad as it gets and the nightmare impact their decision had on their relatives and the members of that train crew will last until everyone connected with them has passed away.
I hired on the railroad 2-3 days ago as a engineer and in that amount of time Ive managed to hit a few cars and treaspassers. and had a few law suits against me already. I just wish i had exspereance so we could have a logical discussion
Some rhetorical questions and observations, as a 'Devil's advocate' - which means that they're just food for thought here, not that I'm advocating or blaming anyone for any of these:
Do the kids in Melbourne wlak down the middle lanes of I-4 or I-95, if that's the most convenient/ easiest path for them to get where they want to go ?
Of all the kids in Melbourne - and all other towns in the US - and all the railroad bridges in and trains running through those towns - how often does this happen ? Is this the exceptional event that demonstrates that everybody else is using the proper amount of care, and these kids didn't ?
How often have the Melbourne police and/ or the FEC police cited someone for trespassing on the trestle ? How well known/ ''notorious and open knowledge'' in the community that people used it ?
How ofen did a train crew see people on the trestle, and call that in to the DS or railroad police for follow-up ?
What did the train crew do when they saw these kids on the trestle ? Immediately blow the horn and apply the brakes ? [I sure hope so.] What will the recorder tape download show ?
I too have served on juries - twice, in Lehigh County criminal trials, about 10 years apart, and as foreman both times. We reached the right result each time. Some of my secretaries and engineer colleagues have also served, esp. in Federal court in Philadelphia, in both civil and criminal cases. All felt that the system worked, and the right results were obtained. But that said, the most important factor is the 'venue' or location of the trial, and the jury and their culture. Here, the 50 - 60 miles between the cultures - esp. the strict 'Pennsylvania Dutch' influence in Allentown/ Lehigh County and Reading/ Berks County, and that of Philadelphia and its suburbs - makes a huge difference - just talk to a defense lawyer. The one first two are pretty much as mersenne6 said, and the latter can be pretty much as wabash1 said (even though he says he racked up that tally with only 2 -3 days experience . . . Tell me, do you have the silhouettes of the vanquished from those encounters painted on the sides of your locomotive cab, like the fighter pilots do ? ).
- Paul North.
Paul,
In reference to some of your questions above, here is an article that discusses plans to build a pedestrian walkway alongside the FEC trestle:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100223/OPINION/100222015/Our-views--Mourning-three-teens-(Feb.-23)
The plans have been under development for quite a while, but adequate funding has not been available. It is not completely clear from the article, but I assume that the proposed walkway would not be attached to the FEC trestle, but rather, would be built as a freestanding structure alongside of the FEC trestle.
What I find interesting is that there is apparently enough need for pedestrians to cross Crane Creek at the location of the FEC trestle to justify the construction of a pedestrian bridge there. So the FEC trestle has apparently been serving a need to cross the creek, as opposed to just being an attractive nuisance for thrill seekers.
Did anyone heard any updates?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.