Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
NY Times investigates RR accidents in expose

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
I too read Mark's post. A couple of points about : 1. Litigation Lawyers Litigation lawyers are neutral. Obviously, there are those in the plaintiff's bar that fight for high contingency fees and fight against limits on those fees. What you discount is that lawyers MUST look over their shoulder for malpractice as well. Lawsuits against lawyers in injury cases have proliferated in recent years with rising malpractice premiums and other overhead (expensive computer calendaring and additional staff and investigation included) to keep a handle on the caseload making for greater pressure to increase earnings to cover this overhead. Also, the attorney malpractice concern requires a good lawyer to make sure he sues everyone who might have responsibility for the incident in question. If he doesn't and it turns out that someone else was responsible and the statue of limitations against the responsible party has passed...the lawyer takes the hit. So, this leads to lawyers naming everyone who may be responsible in any lawsuit. 2. The New York Times The NYT used to be a responsible paper. The article in question reminds me more of the New York Post and not the Times I knew. Of course, that was before they hired people who made up news too. 3. Signal Maintainer-Subsequent Repairs This article and the prior one makes far too much about repairing problems. What should a responsible company do once it is notified of a problem?! Leave the equipment broken for the next potential victim??? Leave the brush obstructing the view??? Obviously not. In fact, the law of evidence is quite clear that evidence of subsequent repair canot be considered as evidence of liability (fault) in court. This rule is meant to encourage repairs of known problems promptly. The NYT is merely sensationalizing the repairs to make it look improper. Shame on them. LC [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd As usual, Mark H. hits the nails on the head... several of them! A few thoughts, though... on litigation lawyers. Mark notes that they, as a class, are 'value neutral'. How true. And how sad. There was a time when litigation lawyers \could be counted on to have very high standards of values, and advise clients accordingly. Not any more -- the only value that litigation lawyers seem to have today is 'can I convince a jury to award a lot of money to my client so I can make a lot of money'. Yes, we the people could (if the litigation lawyers weren't such a powerful political force) change the laws to reduce the money incentive, but such legislation has been tried, and usually fails (same problem in medical malpractice, among other areas). Also, years ago the New York Times was regarded as one of the best and finest newspapers in the world. Their motto was 'All the news that's fit to print' and they did a fine, unbiased job of reporting. Opinion was confined to their excellent editorial pages. Not any more, friends. I wouldn't trust the New York Times for an accurate report of today's weather. Which is a real pity. A third thought: in one (1) (singular instance) it was reported that a signal maintainer 'got there before the investigators and replaced some equipment' implying, but NOT PROVING (sorry for shouting), a coverup. Is it possible that he was trying to get the signals -- which may have been damaged (nobody says) working again, to try to protect the next Darwin candidate? Does anyone know? As I said on the other thread on this series... Sigh... [/quote]
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