Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
MM&A could claim that the engineer was at fault because he was supposed to set enough handbrakes to prevent the train from rolling, and the train rolled.  But that charge cannot stick because the engineer had no way of knowing how many brakes it would have taken to prevent the train from rolling.  So the company’s requirement is invalid because the means of meeting it is unknowable unless the train rolls.  Or, the MM&A could claim that the engineer was at fault not setting 11 handbrakes per the MM&A requirement, and they could claim that this is proven by the fact that the train rolled.  However, the MM&A has no way of proving that 11 handbrakes would have held the train; especially when the MM&A has no specification as to how tightly the brakes must be applied.  The engineer claims he set 11 handbrakes per the MM&A requirement, and there is no way anybody can prove otherwise.  Ultimately, the MM&A will be held responsible for not having a reliable method of securing unattended trains at the top of that grade.  And this, of course, is proven by the fact that one of their trains ran away and caused a disaster.
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