Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Informed"]   There are numerous facts that have not been brought out in this discussion.  I sat through 5+ years of pre-trial motions, hearings, and discovery and then sat through every day of the six week trial. The physical evidence did prove (beyond any reasonable doubt), that the vehicle was in the proper lane (all physical evidence supported and proved this), and was traveling under the posted the speed limit.  The train on the other hand, was traveling above the posted limit, and the engineer did not blow the horn as required, and did not apply brakes until at least 7 seconds after the time of impact with the car (despite having testified that he watched the car drive around the gates).  By the way, he also got the color of the car wrong, and identified the wrong victim as the driver.  He was absolutely certain in his testimony of the driver and certain placement of the victims within the car.  He got it all wrong!  This was later proved through painful testimony and graphic images of injuries suffered by the occupants of the vehicle. BNSF did in fact, abuse the legal process and WILL be sanctioned for their outrageous behavior in this case.  BNSF abused the rules of discovery, destroyed critical evidence (including signal diagrams and event recorder data; contrary to documented policies and against specific direction from senior management of BNSF the night of the accident), altered electronic signal data, failed to cooperate with law enforcement officials, and generally misled the court throughout the entire proceeding.  I've not even begun to address all the issues and outright unethical behavior within the context of this post. The comments made about the jury by some who posted comments, are simply wrong.  This jury sat through weeks of lies, contradiction, and altered data offered by the railroad.  They made a good and just decision.  I realize this forum is biased on the side of the railroad, but I would suggest trying to put yourselves into the same position that these kids were in the night of the accident.  Until this railroad starts taking responsibility for the action and/or inactions, our rail crossings will not be safe. [/quote] Welcome to the forum.  I will gladly listen to and consider your account of the trial since you claim to have extensive experience with it.  As I said in the first post, I have no idea what to make of the story, because I can only go by what was reported in the news, and that accounting raises many questions the go unanswered.   <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> Reading your account and the news media’s account of the railroad’s behavior, I get the following perception:  The jury concluded that the BNSF lied, destroyed incriminating evidence, were uncooperative, and generally so incorrigibly dishonest and deceitful that when they said the signals were working properly, that claim was outright rejected by the jury because the BNSF had no credibility due to their litany of bad behavior.   <o:p></o:p> But what was the actual direct evidence that the signals were not working?  I want to know exactly how the physical evidence supported and proved that the vehicle was in the proper lane when it was hit.  Was there fresh damage to the roadway or crossing surface that was within the proper lane for the vehicle?  Were there tire skid marks running parallel with the tracks, and beginning within the proper lane for the vehicle?  <o:p></o:p> The news report linked with this thread says that the police said that the evidence at the scene was consistent with a vehicle running around the lowered gate.  What evidence were they talking about?  How do you reconcile their conclusion with your contention that the evidence showed the car to be in the proper lane when hit?   The traffic laws state that the crossbuck at the crossing constitutes a yield sign that requires a driver to look for trains and yield if any are approaching whether the signals are activated or not.  The driver failed to yield.  Doesn’t that place him at fault for the crash?
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag