Train kills 3 teen girls crossing Florida bridge

[The Butler]

Two thoughts:

1) Why didn't they hear the train?  iPod

2) In the TRAINS News Wire story "Train severs leg of subway vandal," (February 15, 2010) it states, "snip...The three were standing in boxes where maintenance workers stand to let trains pass.  Juarez was struck by the train's third-rail shoe,...snip."  If the catwalk is put there to "save lives" and doesn't, where does that put the railroad, law or no law requiring catwalks?

[Anonymous]

Modelcar

....Could a "catwalk" with railings, be constructed on {any} RR bridge be labled as "No tresspasing" and have signage indicating: "For RR employes only, others will be prosecuted, etc..."....be done in such a way to make the RR free of a lawsuit if any person not associated with that RR did use it and possibly be injured being on it.

 

Quentin,

 

I think the addition of a catwalk could cut both ways.  It is hard to predict how things could be spun to justify a lawsuit.  A lot of trestles do have walkways with railings, coupled with no trespassing signs.  Oddly enough, the one in Melbourne does have a second track deck already in place alongside the active track.  Adding planking and a railing would encourage trespassing.  But it would also have the potential to save lives, and that would go a long way to reduce the potential for lawsuits.

 

It is going to be interesting to watch the public sentiment as it develops in the aftermath of this Melbourne tragedy.  There has already been considerable mention of the poorly maintained no trespassing signs at the site.  With the likely outpouring of sympathy for the victims, I suspect public opinion might quickly turn against the FEC.  

[Ted Marshall]

Fox2!

I believe that at least some of FEC's grade crossings in Melbourne/Eau Gallie are "silent."

There are no quiet zones or silent crossings anywhere on the FEC. There were some years ago, but they didn't last long.  Grade crossing collisions and pedestrian strikes increased sharply so FEC discontinued the practice.

Here's an interesting news clip about Saturday's tragic event:  

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/brevard_news/022110_Teen_girls_killed_by_train_community_shocked

[Awesome!]

Bucyrus

Modelcar

....Could a "catwalk" with railings, be constructed on {any} RR bridge be labled as "No tresspasing" and have signage indicating: "For RR employes only, others will be prosecuted, etc..."....be done in such a way to make the RR free of a lawsuit if any person not associated with that RR did use it and possibly be injured being on it.

 

Quentin,

 

I think the addition of a catwalk could cut both ways.  It is hard to predict how things could be spun to justify a lawsuit.  A lot of trestles do have walkways with railings, coupled with no trespassing signs.  Oddly enough, the one in Melbourne does have a second track deck already in place alongside the active track.  Adding planking and a railing would encourage trespassing.  But it would also have the potential to save lives, and that would go a long way to reduce the potential for lawsuits.

 

It is going to be interesting to watch the public sentiment as it develops in the aftermath of this Melbourne tragedy.  There has already been considerable mention of the poorly maintained no trespassing signs at the site.  With the likely outpouring of sympathy for the victims, I suspect public opinion might quickly turn against the FEC.  

I are you trying to say the FEC its a fault?

[Awesome!]

MP173

Why didnt the kids hear the train?

My guess is IPod.

Ed

If you notice the bridge is not to long. I agree with your comment about the teenager maybe were using their I-Pod and they were able to hear the train. Does the NTSB investigate this type of accident or its left to our local police to investigate?

[wabash1]

Awesome!

MP173

Why didnt the kids hear the train?

My guess is IPod.

Ed

If you notice the bridge is not to long. I agree with your comment about the teenager maybe were using their I-Pod and they were able to hear the train. Does the NTSB investigate this type of accident or its left to our local police to investigate?

the investigation will be by the local police and the fra.

[tree68]

Ted Marshall

Here's an interesting news clip about Saturday's tragic event:  

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/brevard_news/022110_Teen_girls_killed_by_train_community_shocked

I like the first sentence.  They put the blame squarely where it belongs.

[Ulrich]

Awesome!

Bucyrus

Modelcar

....Could a "catwalk" with railings, be constructed on {any} RR bridge be labled as "No tresspasing" and have signage indicating: "For RR employes only, others will be prosecuted, etc..."....be done in such a way to make the RR free of a lawsuit if any person not associated with that RR did use it and possibly be injured being on it.

 

Quentin,

 

I think the addition of a catwalk could cut both ways.  It is hard to predict how things could be spun to justify a lawsuit.  A lot of trestles do have walkways with railings, coupled with no trespassing signs.  Oddly enough, the one in Melbourne does have a second track deck already in place alongside the active track.  Adding planking and a railing would encourage trespassing.  But it would also have the potential to save lives, and that would go a long way to reduce the potential for lawsuits.

 

It is going to be interesting to watch the public sentiment as it develops in the aftermath of this Melbourne tragedy.  There has already been considerable mention of the poorly maintained no trespassing signs at the site.  With the likely outpouring of sympathy for the victims, I suspect public opinion might quickly turn against the FEC.  

I are you trying to say the FEC its a fault?

 

Any "normal" person wouldn't find fault with the railroad...but a lawyer might argue that FEC didn't do everything to prevent this from happening. Was there foot path leading to/from the bridge? Were there signs posted? Was there a fence in place at either end that would reasonably discourage tresspassers?

Nonetheless, one sometimes has to look past the legal aspects. A walkway/catwalk might encourage more pedestrian traffic just as paved roads and rubber tires encourage driving...and both activities are risky. People are going to cross bridges whether its legal or not...so may as well make it safer to do so.

 

[kolechovski]

Interesting.  I am surprised though that the bridge lacks a catlwalk, or at least certain standings points you see on some large bridges.  You'd think they'd have those for crews anyhow.  And I wonder how the girls didn't knwo about the bridge on the other side.  You'd think they could've jumped onto it.

[OldArmy94]

I still think adding anything in way of a catwalk would NOT help the railroad from a liability standpoint and NOT reduce the numbers of deaths. Adding a catwalk would be providing a means for trespassers to cross, and I can almost hear the attorney for the plaintiff arguing that the RR placed an inviting means of crossing. "After all, if the railroad didn't want people to cross, then why did they have an obvious pedestrian bridge parallel to the tracks?" Second, I don't know if the numbers of deaths would be reduced. By adding a pedestrian crossing, you will naturally increase the number of trespassers. You MAY see a reduction in train-pedestrian collisions, but I bet that there will be an increase in falls, slips and other types of potentially deadly events. Crime could become a problem; after all, what better place to meet up for a little drug swap than on a remote bridge crossing? Vandalism may also increase. In short, I think that the railroads simply need to continue to be diligent in using signage and attempt to reduce access to bridges and trestles. Prosecute trespassers to demonstrate that it will not be tolerated. And, when the occasional tragedy occurs, find a good lawyer to defend your business and demonstrate that you attempted to reasonably limit deaths and injuries.

[Ulrich]

There are all kinds of bridges that allow pedestrians to cross and that do not invite mischief. Surely the number of people getting hit by trains would drop..IF you take the people off the tracks by giving them a convenient alternative...no?

[wabash1]

Ulrich

There are all kinds of bridges that allow pedestrians to cross and that do not invite mischief. Surely the number of people getting hit by trains would drop..IF you take the people off the tracks by giving them a convenient alternative...no?

Here is a idea how about do nothing , should it be the railroads responsibility to give the treaspassers a place to hang out do as they want. NO in short if they treaspass and dont get off the bridge or jump then they die. easy simple and effective.  the number of people getting hit by trains would drop if they wouldnt treaspass, make people accountable for thier actions. not the railroads and its employees.

[Ulrich]

wabash1

Ulrich

There are all kinds of bridges that allow pedestrians to cross and that do not invite mischief. Surely the number of people getting hit by trains would drop..IF you take the people off the tracks by giving them a convenient alternative...no?

Here is a idea how about do nothing , should it be the railroads responsibility to give the treaspassers a place to hang out do as they want. NO in short if they treaspass and dont get off the bridge or jump then they die. easy simple and effective.  the number of people getting hit by trains would drop if they wouldnt treaspass, make people accountable for thier actions. not the railroads and its employees.

Yes..and the number of people who die from health issues every year would drop drastically too if everyone runs a  mile every morning..doesn't smoke..and eats healthy.  We could fix the healthcare system (reduce cost and taxes to us) by denying those people (who don't live a healthy lifestyle) healthcare..hey...they don't take care of themselves. ..why should that be our problem? I agree...we should be responsible for our actions...but...we live in a society.

 

 

 

 

[Anonymous]

wabash1

Ulrich

There are all kinds of bridges that allow pedestrians to cross and that do not invite mischief. Surely the number of people getting hit by trains would drop..IF you take the people off the tracks by giving them a convenient alternative...no?

Here is a idea how about do nothing , should it be the railroads responsibility to give the treaspassers a place to hang out do as they want. NO in short if they treaspass and dont get off the bridge or jump then they die. easy simple and effective.  the number of people getting hit by trains would drop if they wouldnt treaspass, make people accountable for thier actions. not the railroads and its employees.

That is all true, but it might be cheaper for the railroads to add safety measures to trestles that reduce deaths rather than paying the civil settlements for those deaths.  I wouldn’t be surprised if FEC pays a pretty penny for this one.

[garr]

Ulrich

There are all kinds of bridges that allow pedestrians to cross and that do not invite mischief. Surely the number of people getting hit by trains would drop..IF you take the people off the tracks by giving them a convenient alternative...no?

First, my heart goes out to everyone involved in this incident. These senseless deaths will cause long term nightmares for the crew, the girls' family and friends, and the responders. I live 700 miles away, don't know anyone involved, yet am bothered by this as many of you are.

 Now, crosswalks are located on streets, however people are still being hit crossing the streets in areas other than the crosswalk.

Using this analogy, unless the national psyche has changed, why make a railroad bridge more attractive to trespassers?

In today's hyper legal atmosphere where lawyers try to find gray areas, even in very simple law such as trespassing, why give them more fuel for their arguments by making a catwalk on a railroad bridge?

Trespassing is simple to understand, if it is not your land and you were not offered an invitation to stand on it, stay off. Add in a sign stating No Trespassing and it should be clear to anyone.

Yet, if the families decide legal action, there will be a lawyer willing to find gray where none should exist.

Jay--who always jay-walks whether in a crosswalk or not.

[vsmith]

I think to protect themselves the RRs will eventually have to post very large "DO NOT ENTER - NO TRESSPASSING" signs at each side of bridges and tunnels like they do on Highways, these large very visable signages may be the best way to convey the peril one places themselves in if they ignore them and give the RRs a measure of protection, What, you didnt see the gianormous highway like sign before you walked out onto the bridge???

 

[Modelcar]

garr

Using this analogy, unless the national psyche has changed, why make a railroad bridge more attractive to trespassers?

In today's hyper legal atmosphere where lawyers try to find gray areas, even in very simple law such as trespassing, why give them more fuel for their arguments by making a catwalk on a railroad bridge?

Trespassing is simple to understand, if it is not your land and you were not offered an invitation to stand on it, stay off. Add in a sign stating No Trespassing and it should be clear to anyone.

First question above:  To have the potential to save lives.

Second question:  To be there for plan "B"....For those who will not listen, catwalk or not....A space to jump to, or use in the first place to prevent tragedy with an approaching train.

Third question:  You say yourself, "add in a sign stating no tresspassing and it should be clear to anyone".....That is what I said in the first post....If a catwalk is in plece:  "No tresspassing.  Railroad employees ony.  All others will be prosecuted".  Or whatever legal language would be required on the signage.

I certainly would not be suggesting a catwalk, or even an offset space every so many ft. to escape to make it easy for tresspassers.....but just a space to get to for the safety of a legit. person {RR employee}, or even a tresspasser {in an emergency....to save a life...!

If tresspassers can't be stopped, doesn't it make some kind of sense to prevent someone from being killed.....I realize RR's probably wouldn't care to go this route, but just for this discussion, I think it would be worth having, to minimize potential tragedies.

An off the wall thought:  Perhaps a metal gate {locked}, at each end of the "walkway", of the bridge / trestle.  And only RR employees would have keys for it....Now....If a tresspasser is found inside a "locked" space...do they still "win a case against the RR if somehow they still are injured....?

[Anonymous]

Modelcar

garr

Using this analogy, unless the national psyche has changed, why make a railroad bridge more attractive to trespassers?

In today's hyper legal atmosphere where lawyers try to find gray areas, even in very simple law such as trespassing, why give them more fuel for their arguments by making a catwalk on a railroad bridge?

Trespassing is simple to understand, if it is not your land and you were not offered an invitation to stand on it, stay off. Add in a sign stating No Trespassing and it should be clear to anyone.

First question above:  To have the potential to save lives.

Second question:  To be there for plan "B"....For those who will not listen, catwalk or not....A space to jump to, or use in the first place to prevent tragedy with an approaching train.

Third question:  You say yourself, "add in a sign stating no tresspassing and it should be clear to anyone".....That is what I said in the first post....If a catwalk is in plece:  "No tresspassing.  Railroad employees ony.  All others will be prosecuted".  Or whatever legal language would be required on the signage.

I certainly would not be suggesting a catwalk, or even an offset space every so many ft. to escape to make it easy for tresspassers.....but just a space to get to for the safety of a legit. person {RR employee}, or even a tresspasser {in an emergency....to save a life...!

If tresspassers can't be stopped, doesn't it make some kind of sense to prevent someone from being killed.....I realize RR's probably wouldn't care to go this route, but just for this discussion, I think it would be worth having, to minimize potential tragedies.

An off the wall thought:  Perhaps a metal gate {locked}, at each end of the "walkway", of the bridge / trestle.  And only RR employees would have keys for it....Now....If a tresspasser is found inside a "locked" space...do they still "win a case against the RR if somehow they still are injured....?

Quentin,

I think you make a good case with all your points.  I'll bet FEC officials are having a lot of second thoughts along the same lines right now, especially considering the fact that they have a ten-foot-wide second track deck sitting there unused alongside of the active track.

As a side note, I predict that this story is on the verge of exploding with news about the trestle hazard and the responsibility of FEC in the matter. 

[Ted Marshall]

Ulrich

There are all kinds of bridges that allow pedestrians to cross and that do not invite mischief. Surely the number of people getting hit by trains would drop..IF you take the people off the tracks by giving them a convenient alternative...no?

This wasn't a case of taking the shortest route to get to the other side of the creek, it was purely a case of teenage mischief, plain and simple. "Oh look, a railroad bridge... Lets walk out onto it to see what it's like. I've never been on one before". If their idea was to use the railroad bridge as a short cut to the other side, they all would've made it across in time, but witnesses say they were loitering on it for minutes before the train rounded the curve and began blowing for the eight grade crossings between the curve and the bridge which WAS heard by all of them; no iPods. The boy's instinct to run like hell when he heard 101's horn was correct and he did yell at his friends to follow suit, but instead they froze. They had a good minute to two minutes to get from the midpoint to the other side, a distance of about 320 feet, after realizing a train was approaching, but instead they chose to do nothing and just stood there. Who knows what they were thinking? The fact is that even if a safe haven was provided, they likely wouldn't have utilized it anyway.  Sad really.

[wabash1]

I know you guys dont like reality and you hate the simple truth and you hate the way i put things because its simple truth and it looks like i have no regaurd for the lost lifes, but the plain truth is the railroad dont care about the lost life that was taken on that bridge in fact the plain truth is they are glad they are dead less to pay out that way, there is not a class 1 or any railroad that if you go out to the bridges and other areas of public access that dont have no treaspassing sign  in plain site both sides.

the railroad is not at fault in this and no matter how you try and slice it. they families dont have a leg to stand on. they have funds set aside in budgets just for this, and if they do like the NS they offer a claim for hard ship and pain and suffering to the families, this is when they get a hair up the back side thinking the railroad is at fault and offering a settlement. then the court battle starts and on and on and on. which is why i go back to my original statement make people accountable for their actions and not others.

[Anonymous]

wabash1

I know you guys dont like reality and you hate the simple truth and you hate the way i put things because its simple truth and it looks like i have no regaurd for the lost lifes, but the plain truth is the railroad dont care about the lost life that was taken on that bridge in fact the plain truth is they are glad they are dead less to pay out that way, there is not a class 1 or any railroad that if you go out to the bridges and other areas of public access that dont have no treaspassing sign  in plain site both sides.

the railroad is not at fault in this and no matter how you try and slice it. they families dont have a leg to stand on. they have funds set aside in budgets just for this, and if they do like the NS they offer a claim for hard ship and pain and suffering to the families, this is when they get a hair up the back side thinking the railroad is at fault and offering a settlement. then the court battle starts and on and on and on. which is why i go back to my original statement make people accountable for their actions and not others.

Actually I do like the way you plainly state things, and I am not blaming the FEC for the accident.  I don’t see that anybody has done that here.  But if there is a lawsuit over this, I would not be surprised if it costs FEC a lot of money just to fight it if nothing else.

[OldArmy94]

Believe me, I am not heartless about what happened.  I think that the deaths of these young ladies is horrible, and that they did NOT deserve to die for simple trespass.  Unfortunately, their actions did result in their deaths, and you cannot blame anyone but them.  I believe that if the railroads attempt to start providing catwalks, pedestrian paths and the like, they become that much more responsible for what happens to those who utilize those facilities.  A previous poster is correct--lawyers WILL use that against the railroad when someone gets hurt or killed.  They will not view it as a "Good Samaritan" effort to protect people, but as a vehicle for suing the railroads.  Plus, I go back to my original contention--placing anything that enables trespassers to enter railroad property may lead to other kinds of trouble.  Tresspassers may be less likely to be hit by trains, but the possibility of falling off the structure may increase since it will appear to be a way to cross.  Unless the law forces railroads to incorporate such structures, I am very much against the idea of these bridge/trestle adjuncts being added on a voluntary, good-faith basis.

[tree68]

Sad to say, and subject to case law and Florida's application of the principle, lawyers may have some success with the attractive nuisance doctrine.

I would opine that as long as there are "daring" things to do, teens will continue to do them, even at risk of their life.

[NP Red]

There is a lot of talk about catwalks. You can not assume that it would have saved them. They died because they were surprised and paniced. I'm sure they did not think about their options if a train came along. We know that they could have jumped to the water, jumped to the other ROW, laid down outside the gage or even at last resort lay down between the gage. They tried to out run the train.

Even if there was a catwalk, they might have still been killed running between the rails to get off the bridge. In that kind of situation people don't always do the logical thing.

[tbdanny]

tree68

Sad to say, and subject to case law and Florida's application of the principle, lawyers may have some success with the attractive nuisance doctrine.

While I see that conditions 1, 2 and 4 are met, and maybe 3, I think that the railroad has taken reasonable care to prevent trespassing.  There's no walkway, so there's obviously no gate that needs to be locked - the only access onto the bridge is via the tracks themselves.  There were 'no tresspassing' signs up.  Short of putting a gate across the tracks (similar to some British transition-era private industry sidings), what else could they have done?

[Anonymous]

tbdanny

tree68

Sad to say, and subject to case law and Florida's application of the principle, lawyers may have some success with the attractive nuisance doctrine.

While I see that conditions 1, 2 and 4 are met, and maybe 3, I think that the railroad has taken reasonable care to prevent trespassing.  There's no walkway, so there's obviously no gate that needs to be locked - the only access onto the bridge is via the tracks themselves.  There were 'no tresspassing' signs up.  Short of putting a gate across the tracks (similar to some British transition-era private industry sidings), what else could they have done?

 

They could have placed decking and a railing on the unused second track structure.

[vsmith]

Placing decking on the adjacent track is not a guarentee anyone would have used it, these girls and others could just as easily use the tracks anyways, also by decking it the RR by action condones the tresspassing and as such assumes liability for any accidents that might occur on it, again its a no-win for the RR to do such a thing.

[Ted Marshall]

Bucyrus

They could have placed decking and a railing on the unused second track structure.

Why would they do that when nobody's supposed to be on it anyway?  

[Anonymous]

Ted Marshall

Bucyrus

They could have placed decking and a railing on the unused second track structure.

Why would they do that when nobody's supposed to be on it anyway?  

So they could keep more of their money in their pockets.

[Ulrich]

Sure looks like the ambulance chasers have us running scared...first consideration seems to be "how will this look in the event of a lawsuit". We should instead try to do the right thing by invoking commonsense...people are going to tresspass..that's a given..so let's improve the infrastructure so that at least no one who practices reasonable commonsense gets killed. About the lawyers..let the chips fall where they may.. in the event of an accident the railroad can probably always be found at fault to some extent by someone in the legal profession. Railroads have legal departments to fight back for that reason.