Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers
RudyRockvilleMDMany states restrict the number of teens that can drive with other teen age drivers in one car, family members not included. Didn't the driver learn about the danger of driving around lowered crossing gates?
A. Most teens can't stand that law, and if they ignore it, it wouldn't surprise me.
B. It's just like when 30, 40, 50 year olds plow through the crossing bell sounding, lights flashing, gates down. They're impatient, or not paying attention to what's going on.
It's a shame really.
At the risk of antagonizing the various attorneys on this forum, I find the contingency fee to be an inherent conflict of interest. When the size of the attorney's paycheck is directly linked to the size of the settlement, it can encourage an attorney to bleed the defendant for as much as he can rather than get a fair and just settlement.
I suppose I cut the comment concerning occupations a little too short. In every case they did ask your occupation but the only ones that I saw that elicited additional questions were as mentioned in the first post. As for your case - one person, one lawyer's choice, one data point and no additional information about the occupations of any of those who were chosen nor information about the kind of case - with this data it could have been anything - one possibility, of course, is that they were trying for a dumbing down but there are any number of others. In any event I don't see how this single sample could possibly be viewed as proof of the assertion
"What about the jury questionaires that are used to screen out anybody with a brain in their head and to pack the jury with idiots who actually believe the party with the most money is always at fault?"
Getting back to the point this thread - I took a look at the video clip from the camera - unless the three juries I served on were wild exceptions to the rule I would have a very hard time believing a typical jury would find for the driver. Now, before everyone starts chiming in with all of those McDonald coffee stories - remember the point of the first post was the question of what constitutes typical jury selection/behavior - as I said, based on what I've seen, the statement quoted above does not describe typical.
In the final analysis - I must say I'm very sorry for the suffering that drivers actions caused on all sides - the engineer, the passengers in the car, the families and spouses of those involved, etc. I've read a number of first person accounts by railroad engineers which have included descriptions of grade crossing accidents. Just recalling the written description of some of the accidents is enough to make me cringe - I can only guess what it must do, on a daily basis, to the engineer who lived through it.
I can't say that I was specifically not chosen for a jury one time because of my occupation but all remarks led me to believe it was true. The defense attorney asked if I my occupation had a constant reinforcement with safety and safety-related materials. I replied that it did and when he was given so many prospective jurors to excuse, I was one of them. Coincidence?
The already posted surveillance video of the teens driving around an already stopped and waiting vehicle, on what would appear to be a 2 lane road, is proof enough, in my mind, that the crossing protection was functioning in advance of the train.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The comment concerning the use/structure of jury questionnaires is curious in the extreme. In my experience anyone who would believe that comment has never actually served time on a jury. I've been in the box 3 times in my life and while this is indeed a small sample I did the box time in three different states - two criminal and one civil. In each case the questions focused on conflict of interest (relations to anyone involved, job similar to anyone involved, etc.) and, in the case of the criminal cases - had you or any close relative ever been the victim of a similar crime or of any crime. The only questions concerning occupations focused on medical, law enforcement, or judicial and the medical only came up in the civil trial. No other questions were asked.
FYI in one of the criminal cases two prospective jurors had served jail time and while one was disqualified the other sat on the jury. That particular group of prospectiive jurors did not have anyone in law enforcement but several had spouses or other relations who were and at least one of those individuals also sat on that jury. I don't remember the occupations of everyone with whom I sat but I do recall we had the spouse of a police officer, the former inmate who was now a machinist, a medical doctor, a high school science teacher, a statistician, an advertising executive, and a civil engineer.
As has been noted - the judge presides, the lawyers present, and the jury listens and assesses what was presented and renders a verdict. In each situation in which I served I was impressed by the way all of my fellow jurors viewed their responsibility. Everyone was very much aware of the fact that whatever we decided it was going to have a major impact on peoples lives. The discussion in the jury room was to the point and very very frank. People referred to the notes they had taken and more than once we asked for portions of the testimony to be read back to us because of conflicts between note takers. In all three cases I thought the verdicts we reached were as fair and as impartial as humans could make them.
Are there idiot jurors, stupid judges, and sleazy lawyers? Of course there are - but the big question is - are these people typical? Based on what I've experienced I'd have to say - no.
Boyd What is really needed now,,,,, are prayers for the families and friends of the dead, the train crew and passengers,,,, and all the witnesses and first responders who had to see it all.
What is really needed now,,,,, are prayers for the families and friends of the dead, the train crew and passengers,,,, and all the witnesses and first responders who had to see it all.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
ButchKnouse usersatch greyhounds Be assured. Some lawyer will convince a jury that the gates weren't down. The testimony of the engine crew will be thown out because it will be assumed they are lying. It's Anoka all over again. This is such a weak and tired argument! You can blame attorneys all you want. Juries are the triers of fact. Attorneys just present the facts of the case TO the jury. It is up to the jury to decide whether what they present is believeable or not. If you have a problem with the outcome of a case, blame the jury!!! Attorneys do NOT decide the case! A bad attorney, however, can make or break a case (read the prosecutors in the OJ Simpson case). So blame sympathetic juries AND bad lawyers. If a jury or juror is bored or non-sympathetic, blame society, not the legal system. If the result is "stupid", it means the jury is "stupid". Just remember, YOU are not in the box, hearing the entire case. As an attorney myself, I can tell you that you try your best argument and see if it "sticks". If the jury buys it, great for your client. Attorneys only get away with what the juries allow them to get away with (that and the procedural rules of the judge). As for inadmissible evidence, it is what it is. There are certain rules to follow. If you cant find an exception to get it in, you need to find another line of work. My condolences go to the familes and to the crew. It's a sad thing that the engineer, et al, have to suffer the rest of their life just because of someone else's stupid, youthful indiscretion. What about the jury questionaires that are used to screen out anybody with a brain in their head and to pack the jury with idiots who actually believe the party with the most money is always at fault? I'll start believing in the system again when there is better way to select juries.
usersatch greyhounds Be assured. Some lawyer will convince a jury that the gates weren't down. The testimony of the engine crew will be thown out because it will be assumed they are lying. It's Anoka all over again. This is such a weak and tired argument! You can blame attorneys all you want. Juries are the triers of fact. Attorneys just present the facts of the case TO the jury. It is up to the jury to decide whether what they present is believeable or not. If you have a problem with the outcome of a case, blame the jury!!! Attorneys do NOT decide the case! A bad attorney, however, can make or break a case (read the prosecutors in the OJ Simpson case). So blame sympathetic juries AND bad lawyers. If a jury or juror is bored or non-sympathetic, blame society, not the legal system. If the result is "stupid", it means the jury is "stupid". Just remember, YOU are not in the box, hearing the entire case. As an attorney myself, I can tell you that you try your best argument and see if it "sticks". If the jury buys it, great for your client. Attorneys only get away with what the juries allow them to get away with (that and the procedural rules of the judge). As for inadmissible evidence, it is what it is. There are certain rules to follow. If you cant find an exception to get it in, you need to find another line of work. My condolences go to the familes and to the crew. It's a sad thing that the engineer, et al, have to suffer the rest of their life just because of someone else's stupid, youthful indiscretion.
greyhounds Be assured. Some lawyer will convince a jury that the gates weren't down. The testimony of the engine crew will be thown out because it will be assumed they are lying. It's Anoka all over again.
Be assured.
Some lawyer will convince a jury that the gates weren't down. The testimony of the engine crew will be thown out because it will be assumed they are lying. It's Anoka all over again.
This is such a weak and tired argument! You can blame attorneys all you want. Juries are the triers of fact. Attorneys just present the facts of the case TO the jury. It is up to the jury to decide whether what they present is believeable or not. If you have a problem with the outcome of a case, blame the jury!!! Attorneys do NOT decide the case! A bad attorney, however, can make or break a case (read the prosecutors in the OJ Simpson case). So blame sympathetic juries AND bad lawyers. If a jury or juror is bored or non-sympathetic, blame society, not the legal system. If the result is "stupid", it means the jury is "stupid". Just remember, YOU are not in the box, hearing the entire case.
As an attorney myself, I can tell you that you try your best argument and see if it "sticks". If the jury buys it, great for your client. Attorneys only get away with what the juries allow them to get away with (that and the procedural rules of the judge).
As for inadmissible evidence, it is what it is. There are certain rules to follow. If you cant find an exception to get it in, you need to find another line of work.
My condolences go to the familes and to the crew. It's a sad thing that the engineer, et al, have to suffer the rest of their life just because of someone else's stupid, youthful indiscretion.
What about the jury questionaires that are used to screen out anybody with a brain in their head and to pack the jury with idiots who actually believe the party with the most money is always at fault?
I'll start believing in the system again when there is better way to select juries.
And all this time I thought that such questionares were used to determine which jurors did not have a brain, and would just use emotion to give me that new vacation home I always wanted. Shucks.
Gabe
P.S. You believed in the system . . . phhhhhh . . . . by the way what do you propose as its replacement?.
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
Out here in the wild, wild west the Union Pacific installs dual gates that block the entire roadway so people can't go around them -- but I still saw an idiot on a bicycle in downtown Benson, Arizona, race an Amtrak train to the crossing. He won by only a few inches.
Limitedclear I'd be interested to know why the surveillance camera was placed at the crossing in the first place. Also, interesting to note that the video is identified as "Cam 3" I'd be interested to see the film from the other cameras on site, if any.
I'd be interested to know why the surveillance camera was placed at the crossing in the first place. Also, interesting to note that the video is identified as "Cam 3" I'd be interested to see the film from the other cameras on site, if any.
According to one of the articles on the Free Press web site, that footage came from a security camera located on a nearby business building. It was not intented to monitor the rail crossing, but nevertheless did document this unfortunate event.
Mike
LC, I understand your point about suing. However, no real justice would be done. I am sure the rest of the driver's family had no control over him at that moment. And how much more can four families take from one family? Money isn't everything and it sure as hell shouldn't be the punishment, especially if there isn't much money in the pot to begin with.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Z -
It is difficult to forget any of the ones I have been through (vehicle collisions and suicide by train in a couple) and luckily for me they were before my days behind the throttle, when I was in the left hand seat(s). Still, I remember an old head conductor telling me that there is nothing like "the sound of someone's skull bouncing off your snowplow". That has stuck with me all these years and it is true. All of the sights and sounds of those incidents can and will come back. The stuff of railroader's nightmares, mine included...
LC
zardoz pmsteammanOnly 1 was fatal and I can still see the look on the passengers face just before we hit him. Yeah, that sort of thing stays with you for a while. My first one was back in '74, and I can still remember....
pmsteammanOnly 1 was fatal and I can still see the look on the passengers face just before we hit him.
A tragedy indeed, made all that much worse by the gross negligence if not outright reckless conduct of the young driver. If there is legal action brought it should be by the families of the passengers against the estate of the driver and perhaps any others responsible for entrusting him with the car under a theory of negligent entrustment given his suspended license and poor driving history. Both Amtrak and the NS appear to have no liability as media are quoting police investigating as saying the train was within the spped limit, that the horn was sounded for the crossing and that the warning devices worked correctly as backed up by both live witnesses in the SUV and elsewhere and the video footage. I'd be interested to know why the surveillance camera was placed at the crossing in the first place. Also, interesting to note that the video is identified as "Cam 3" I'd be interested to see the film from the other cameras on site, if any.
Bringing gender into this...my car insurance agent (back when I was HS age) commented to my parents that in his experience younger males generally drove inattentively less often but aggressively more often. Each 'fault' having a specific set of risks associated with it but neither was any less dangerous.
Dan
In an earlier post, zardoz believed stupidity had to be involved; I agree. But I think that "bravado" is part of this. Observing men and women throught the years, I believe men are more prone to acts of bravado. "Look how brave I am! I care not about risks!"
How many women mountain climbers can you name? How about race car drivers? I can think of a couple of women drivers, but bravado seems to be a male thing. And on impulse, not taking the time to think through about the various risks involved nor the risks to others.
I wonder if the driver of the car was a young male.
Art
News reports today say the car went around an SUV stopped at the downed gates as well as the gates before being struck by the train which was within its speed limit at that point. The report also noted that the driver had just had his license suspended after quite a few violations indicating he had been a risk taker and speeder.
Just saw on the news that they have a video of the accident. Hard to see impact, but you can see the train and the car goin down the tracks. Seemed like the car driver didn't even stop or slow down too much. You see the car, then seconds later it's goin down the track. That would be gruesome to watch. Those kids probably had no time to realize what was going to happen. Shame that lives are snuffed out like that. My heart goes out to all involved.
There was a suv stopped at the crossing for 17 seconds before the teens went around it and the gates. While I am very sorry for the families loss I am more sad for the engineer. Having been involved in 7 grade crossing accidents in my 11 years behind the throttle they are never easy. Only 1 was fatal and I can still see the look on the passengers face just before we hit him.
Such tragedies will not be completely eradicated in our lifetime.
My thought would be to install "gates" that make it not an option to "drive around" them with the thought at being able to "beat the train".....But I'm sure that is not going to happen.
And some people will often "take chances" and some will simply make the mistake of "driving around" , not to "beat the train", but just in making a mistake in what they are doing.....
Quentin
Note that on the part of the driver - the only one that really matters here - this appears way beyond inattention or distraction, or even stupidity or under-development.
According to the reports, the driver didn't just 'blow past' or ignore the crossing signals - instead, the driver actually took a deliberate, intentional, knowing, and reckless action to steer around and evade the warning device. In effect, the driver acknowledged that the gates were there, and pretty much what they were there for - and still took steps to defeat their purpose. That's not stupidity, since the driver was smart enough to do and accomplish that. At best, it's a gross error in judgment. More likely, it was gambling with the train's speed - as evidently mis-perceived by the driver - to save a few seconds or some aggravation, with several lives at stake, or 'dicing with the devil'. But this time, the devil won.
- Paul North.
dknelson The Bartzokis Study is confirmed again -- that is the study that got so much attention a few years back, showing that the brain only starts to create significant myelin -- the white matter that makes the various gray matter brain parts really work together (layman's version here) leading to the ability to forsee consequences and have good judgment -- during the teen years. The brain is still not doing a good job of forming myelin during the teen years -- that really awaits the later 20s and 30s and finally is done around age 50. So just about the time you have the ability to exercise good judgment, you have fewer and fewer opportunities to need it! This is why, bluntly stated, so many things that teens do, and college kids do on spring break, seem (actually, are) so stupid.
The Bartzokis Study is confirmed again -- that is the study that got so much attention a few years back, showing that the brain only starts to create significant myelin -- the white matter that makes the various gray matter brain parts really work together (layman's version here) leading to the ability to forsee consequences and have good judgment -- during the teen years. The brain is still not doing a good job of forming myelin during the teen years -- that really awaits the later 20s and 30s and finally is done around age 50. So just about the time you have the ability to exercise good judgment, you have fewer and fewer opportunities to need it!
This is why, bluntly stated, so many things that teens do, and college kids do on spring break, seem (actually, are) so stupid.
greyhounds Be assured. Some lawyer will convince a jury that the gates weren't down. The testimony of the engine crew will be thown out because it will be assumed they are lying. It's Anoka all over again. And the insurance company will take notice and increase its premiums. It has no other realistic choice.
And the insurance company will take notice and increase its premiums. It has no other realistic choice.
This case will likely be federally preempted. I doubt that filing a lawsuit will be possible, much less viable. Preemption has really gutted what used to be a cottage industry for plaintiff's lawyers on railroad crossing incidents. Besides, all the plaintiff lawyers who specialize in railroad accidents are probably focusing on the glut that will be following the Rochester CN/IC tragedy.
On a different note, I am pleased to see the respectful way forum members are treating this. I was wincing reading this post, thinking someone would say something crude about the deceased. Although I cannot understand why someone would do something so stupid like that, they certainly more than paid for their misstake. Also, as far as we know, the other teens in the car didn't agree to the driver's poor decision making. I shutter to think the number of times I was in a group as a teen when someone was doing something I knew was stupid, wrong, and likely to result in trouble but I didn't have the courage to overcome the peer presure to speak up and put a stop to it.
Other people say they will not let their children drive in a car with multiple teens. My biggest fear is letting my child ride in a car with another teen at the wheel. It will be hard enough to try to get my children to use their good judgment while driving. The thought of trusting them with another teen's judgment is going to be very hard for me to accept. I think back at some of the decision making I and my friends had at that age, and I know that teens just don't think the way adults do.
My sympathy goes out to all involved.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.