Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
I find it most interesting that this case found BNSF in fault because they failed to prove that the automatic crossing protection system was working during the crash.  From this information, I conclude that if there were no automatic system of flashers and gates, but just crossbucks instead; then BNSF could not have been found at fault. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> Generally I would think that automatic flashers and gates reduce liability because they reduce the chance of collisions.  However, by the finding of this trial, it would seem that automatic flashers and gates raise the liability exposure and potential liability cost of a crossing because they can fail to function, or the railroad company can fail to prove that they functioned at a particular train event.   Is this correct?
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