Reading the link provided by BlueStreak1 :
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13307821/BNSF-Sanctions-Final-Draft
One has to wonder if the shear incompetence of the Signa Maintainer was designed to protect his eminent departure to retirement; possibly, the tact taken by the BNSF legal team smacks of an approach orchestrated by a "Katzenjammer Kids" (the Wilhelm Busch,cartoon) scripted episode. It seems, almost to be a comedy of errors comitted by the Marx Bros.
I would suspect that as previously suggested by another poster, the BNSF is/or has rewritten its manuals regarding the specifics of handling data downloaded in the aftermath of such a terrificly tragic episode. At the very least they are/or should be examining on-going legal strategems for this type of case senario. Not to mention allowing some of its staff legal eagles the opportunity to find other career opportunities.
blue streak 1 I have no law experience but I have never heard of a judge adding to an award (any Mn lawyers here?). Usually judges reduce awards. We really need more information on what BNSF did or did not do. Since this was a fatal accident does anyone know if NTSB jurisdiction could have been invoked and could that have delayed turning over any information to state police? If these extra money awards that the judge awarded were because of BNSF "omissions or lying on depositions" then evidence of these items will probably be turned over to some type of prosecutor. If there is sufficient evidence of BNSF employees "non ethical conduct or covering up" including BNSF attorneys then there may be criminal charges filed. One important item are the listed procedures that are to be taken at any accident. These will be laid out in the incident investigation manual contents that BNSF had at the time of the accident. Probably the manual has been extensively revised or soon will be revised.
I have no law experience but I have never heard of a judge adding to an award (any Mn lawyers here?). Usually judges reduce awards. We really need more information on what BNSF did or did not do. Since this was a fatal accident does anyone know if NTSB jurisdiction could have been invoked and could that have delayed turning over any information to state police?
If these extra money awards that the judge awarded were because of BNSF "omissions or lying on depositions" then evidence of these items will probably be turned over to some type of prosecutor. If there is sufficient evidence of BNSF employees "non ethical conduct or covering up" including BNSF attorneys then there may be criminal charges filed.
One important item are the listed procedures that are to be taken at any accident. These will be laid out in the incident investigation manual contents that BNSF had at the time of the accident. Probably the manual has been extensively revised or soon will be revised.
The Judge's Sanctions Order can be found by clicking on the link below. In all seriousness, criminal charges need to be pursued in this matter.
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/153586.aspx?PageIndex=1
$3M of it was awarded for the families' time, due to BNSF allegedly delaying legal proceedings for up to a year, while the other $1M was for legal proceedings.
wjstix It doesn't sound to me like BNSF is the victim here: Judge: Railroad engaged in 'staggering' pattern of misconduct By PAUL LEVY, Star Tribune "The company's conduct stunned legal experts." "In interviews, Minnesota court officials could not recall another major Minnesota case that involved allegations of such pervasive misconduct. Charges of tampering are extremely rare, Minnesota courts spokesman Kyle Christopherson said." "Bob Pottroff, a Kansas-based attorney representing the families, said Burlington Northern's conduct is "unprecedented." "We can't find a parallel case with so many levels of abuse," said Pottroff, a national expert on railroad cases." "Among the railroad company's biggest blunders: • Losing or destroying a computer disk that recorded the train's speed and other factors on the night of the collision. The disk would have revealed whether the victims were given adequate warning time at the crossing. A laptop containing the data was also destroyed. • The railroad's failure to disclose its awareness of previous signal problems at the crossing. • The destruction of records relating to work done on eight feet of track at the crossing. "It was revealed that a work gang had, in fact, worked on the approach track at the Ferry Street Crossing the day before the accident and that, shortly after the accident, the signal system had been revised,'' Maas said in her ruling." http://www.startribune.com/local/east/64462297.html?page=1&c=y
It doesn't sound to me like BNSF is the victim here:
By PAUL LEVY, Star Tribune
"The company's conduct stunned legal experts."
"In interviews, Minnesota court officials could not recall another major Minnesota case that involved allegations of such pervasive misconduct. Charges of tampering are extremely rare, Minnesota courts spokesman Kyle Christopherson said."
"Bob Pottroff, a Kansas-based attorney representing the families, said Burlington Northern's conduct is "unprecedented." "We can't find a parallel case with so many levels of abuse," said Pottroff, a national expert on railroad cases."
"Among the railroad company's biggest blunders:
• The railroad's failure to disclose its awareness of previous signal problems at the crossing.
• The destruction of records relating to work done on eight feet of track at the crossing.
"It was revealed that a work gang had, in fact, worked on the approach track at the Ferry Street Crossing the day before the accident and that, shortly after the accident, the signal system had been revised,'' Maas said in her ruling."
http://www.startribune.com/local/east/64462297.html?page=1&c=y
Yes, it doesn't sound like BNSF is the victim, but it all depends on what these allegations really amount to. They sound bad, but are they really as dishonest, and bad faith as they sound, or are they just being spun that way by the plaintiff’s attorneys? I can’t tell.
This picture of bad faith on the part of BNSF has been used to establish the signal failure. In other words, the premise is that since BNSF cannot prove the signals worked, they must have failed, and BNSF cannot prove the signals worked because nothing they say can be trusted to be true.
I suspect that the signal data evidence was quite complex, and the plaintiff’s attorneys were able to manipulate that complexity in such a way so as to paint a picture for the jury that the complexity was actually deceit on the part of BNSF.
Typical liability verdict. The party with the most money is ALWAYS at fault.
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
I seem to remember in that thread, we had someone claiming to have served on the jury for the case. Can't recall if we ever got anything conclusive from his experiences.
Also, something I was going to note in the original post, there are now quiet zones not too far away from where this happened(actually, I can't remember where this accident happened, so it may be the crossing itself).
Here is the article in the Minneapolis Tribune.
In everything it says, plus in all of the discussion we had in a long thread on this topic last summer, with all of its references, I have yet to hear any clear explanation of why BNSF is at fault. I have yet to hear convincing proof that the gates and/or signals failed to activate.
The highway patrol claims to have proven that the vehicle could not have gotten into the position where it was hit if it had run around the lowered gate, so therefore, the gate was not lowered. Fair enough, but I don’t believe they proved that the vehicle was where they say it was when it was hit. That evidence depends on determining the precise point of impact on the assumption that it must coincide perfectly with the exact beginning of an exploding debris field that ultimately covered several hundred square feet.
If they were just fifteen feet off in their determination of the point of impact, it refutes the conclusion that the driver was where they say he was.
Yep. Just got done reading the article over lunch.
Ouch. This is a black, black eye for BNSF.
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=826687&catid=391
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.