News about this tragedy is again gracing the pages of Variety, Deadline Hollywood, Billboard, and probably a number of other publications.
First Assistant Director Hillary Schwartz is the fourth member of the Production staff to be indicted on charges of involuntary manslaughter. The duties of the First Assistant Director included on-set safety. The lawyer retained by Charles Baxter, Location Manager, says his client attempted to secure permission for the shoot from CSX, but was unsuccessful. He was not on the scene at the time of the accident because he knew permission had not been given.
Tom
Well written edblysard.
This probably one of the few places still following the story after finding out Gregg Allman wasn't there.
From the article:
"The Jones family’s lawsuit says CSX should have taken precautions because it knew the film crew planned to shoot in the area and operators of two passing trains saw the workers before the crash. CSX said its operators saw “unidentified persons” in the area “but not on or immediately near” the tracks."
CSX being the deep pocket target in this one seems to be systematically debunking the merits of the lawsuit looking for a quiet settlement or dismissal. I am sure they probably want to avoid a jury trial.
We don’t really “know” much beyond what is released in the press.
Another poster stated she had no reason to expect events on the bridge to un- fold as they did.
Any reasonable person would only expect to find a train on the tracks, and from all accounts, this young lady was a reasonable and intelligent person.
For that matter, her employer might have told her they did have permission to be up there, or the possibility exists that her job was threatened if she didn’t go….again, we were not there and are not privy to conversations she had with her employer.
Assuming she had no working knowledge of trains, it would not be hard to imagine she thought the train was moving a lot slower that it really was, people often misjudge the speed of trains, like ships, they are big, and people assume something that big must move slow.
Quite possible she miss-judged the train’s speed, or panicked…scared people often make very bad decisions.
CSX has no intention of collecting any money from this young lady’s estate, or the production company….they are establishing a bargaining tool, in that if a out of court settlement is reached with the young lady’s family, they can bargain the amount down by agreeing to drop their counter suit against them, and this also legally establishes their position that CSX feels they are not responsible for the events on the bridge or the death of this young lady.
I would imagine CSX will pursue the suit against the production company, san a money settlement or fine for the production company, this will set a precedent for future cases against trespassers.
From a public relations standpoint, (using English instead of the current vogue catch phrase “optics”) outside of this and other railroad related forums, the majority of the general public would be hard pressed to be able to name the railroad involved, much less remember the event.
Even the Hollywood press is being uncharacteristically quiet about this, after all, if CSX has proof of written denial, then every production company out there will not want to draw attention to this or themselves, as most have at some point taken a few liberties with where they go and what they do in order to get what they want.
23 17 46 11
ACY Yes, she could have refused to go out on the bridge. But the reason this incident has become such a cause celebre is the fact that the film industry has a very warped culture that gave her no job protection if she refused. A bold director who takes his crew into unauthorized or forbidden territory is admired, and the person who stands in the way is the goat. Sarah would have likely become unemployed and unemployable in her field. I have seen video on youtube which shows Director Randall Miller participating in a panel discussion, bragging and laughing about his unauthorized location shooting on the N. Y. City subway system for another film. The audience of film people loved it and a good time was had by all. I can't say what Sarah's thoughts were, but I can guess: She wanted and needed to keep her job; she may have believed the director and production staff when they said their "safety plan" was adequate; and she may have guessed wrongly that the worst was simply not likely to happen. Errors of that kind do not merit the capital punishment. I believe CSX has no liability. Sarah may have made mistakes, but she didn't cause this either. The liability lies strictly with the director and production people. Tom
Yes, she could have refused to go out on the bridge. But the reason this incident has become such a cause celebre is the fact that the film industry has a very warped culture that gave her no job protection if she refused. A bold director who takes his crew into unauthorized or forbidden territory is admired, and the person who stands in the way is the goat. Sarah would have likely become unemployed and unemployable in her field. I have seen video on youtube which shows Director Randall Miller participating in a panel discussion, bragging and laughing about his unauthorized location shooting on the N. Y. City subway system for another film. The audience of film people loved it and a good time was had by all.
I can't say what Sarah's thoughts were, but I can guess: She wanted and needed to keep her job; she may have believed the director and production staff when they said their "safety plan" was adequate; and she may have guessed wrongly that the worst was simply not likely to happen. Errors of that kind do not merit the capital punishment.
I believe CSX has no liability. Sarah may have made mistakes, but she didn't cause this either. The liability lies strictly with the director and production people.
True about the highlighted part, and yes, I feel the liability rests with the director, not CSX.
Norm
n012944 Euclid BaltACDShe was placed in that position by her employer because of her employer's insistence in continuing with on track activities despite having been refused permission two times in writing to do what her employer was doing. So what if she panicked and made a mistake? She had no reason to expect the circumstances that unfolded on the bridge. From the article: "CSX also said 27-year-old Jones was partly to blame for her own death because she “failed to exercise ordinary and responsible care for her own safety.” A spokeswoman for the family did not immediately return an email seeking comment." When you consider the facts that have been reported, that comment is stunningly dense in terms of logic alone. Triple dense in terms of public relations. Did you ever consider that CSX has access to more facts than those that have been reported?
Euclid BaltACDShe was placed in that position by her employer because of her employer's insistence in continuing with on track activities despite having been refused permission two times in writing to do what her employer was doing. So what if she panicked and made a mistake? She had no reason to expect the circumstances that unfolded on the bridge. From the article: "CSX also said 27-year-old Jones was partly to blame for her own death because she “failed to exercise ordinary and responsible care for her own safety.” A spokeswoman for the family did not immediately return an email seeking comment." When you consider the facts that have been reported, that comment is stunningly dense in terms of logic alone. Triple dense in terms of public relations.
BaltACDShe was placed in that position by her employer because of her employer's insistence in continuing with on track activities despite having been refused permission two times in writing to do what her employer was doing.
So what if she panicked and made a mistake? She had no reason to expect the circumstances that unfolded on the bridge.
"CSX also said 27-year-old Jones was partly to blame for her own death because she “failed to exercise ordinary and responsible care for her own safety.” A spokeswoman for the family did not immediately return an email seeking comment."
When you consider the facts that have been reported, that comment is stunningly dense in terms of logic alone. Triple dense in terms of public relations.
Did you ever consider that CSX has access to more facts than those that have been reported?
She also had no (legal) reason to be on the bridge. She could simply have told her boss "I ain't going there".
As I recall, the suit filed by the family of Sarah Jones casts a fairly wide net. It cites CSX, Rayonier, the production company, and perhaps others. It DOES NOT single out CSX exclusively as the one and only guilty party. CSX's action, if I understand this correctly, is intended to insulate CSX from liability. Other parties named in the Jones family's suit will take whatever action they deem prudent.
I do not recall reading anywhere that Sarah Jones was involved in efforts to remove the bed before impact; but director Miller and at least one other person evidently did try to do that. I have heard that Ms. Jones tried to save the camera equipment for which she was responsible. The bed was positioned between Sarah and her only escape route, if I understand this correctly.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 Murray schlimm BaltACD Euclid It is ease to blame the film company executives, but Sarah Jones was working as an employee and was assured that permission had been granted and being on the bridge was safe. I am amazed that CSX would be so ham-handed as to blame her in public. That is dense. From reports at the time Ms. Jones attempted to take the bed off the bridge with her, as opposed to protecting herself FIRST. Bad decision for which she paid with her life. While I don't intend to speak ill of the dead, when their bad decisions bring about their demise, it can't be overlooked. Spoken in the tradition of Vanderbilt. Thank you Edward R. Murrow....... No, Edward R Murrow got his facts straight.
Murray schlimm BaltACD Euclid It is ease to blame the film company executives, but Sarah Jones was working as an employee and was assured that permission had been granted and being on the bridge was safe. I am amazed that CSX would be so ham-handed as to blame her in public. That is dense. From reports at the time Ms. Jones attempted to take the bed off the bridge with her, as opposed to protecting herself FIRST. Bad decision for which she paid with her life. While I don't intend to speak ill of the dead, when their bad decisions bring about their demise, it can't be overlooked. Spoken in the tradition of Vanderbilt. Thank you Edward R. Murrow.......
schlimm BaltACD Euclid It is ease to blame the film company executives, but Sarah Jones was working as an employee and was assured that permission had been granted and being on the bridge was safe. I am amazed that CSX would be so ham-handed as to blame her in public. That is dense. From reports at the time Ms. Jones attempted to take the bed off the bridge with her, as opposed to protecting herself FIRST. Bad decision for which she paid with her life. While I don't intend to speak ill of the dead, when their bad decisions bring about their demise, it can't be overlooked. Spoken in the tradition of Vanderbilt.
BaltACD Euclid It is ease to blame the film company executives, but Sarah Jones was working as an employee and was assured that permission had been granted and being on the bridge was safe. I am amazed that CSX would be so ham-handed as to blame her in public. That is dense. From reports at the time Ms. Jones attempted to take the bed off the bridge with her, as opposed to protecting herself FIRST. Bad decision for which she paid with her life. While I don't intend to speak ill of the dead, when their bad decisions bring about their demise, it can't be overlooked.
Euclid It is ease to blame the film company executives, but Sarah Jones was working as an employee and was assured that permission had been granted and being on the bridge was safe. I am amazed that CSX would be so ham-handed as to blame her in public. That is dense.
It is ease to blame the film company executives, but Sarah Jones was working as an employee and was assured that permission had been granted and being on the bridge was safe. I am amazed that CSX would be so ham-handed as to blame her in public. That is dense.
From reports at the time Ms. Jones attempted to take the bed off the bridge with her, as opposed to protecting herself FIRST. Bad decision for which she paid with her life. While I don't intend to speak ill of the dead, when their bad decisions bring about their demise, it can't be overlooked.
Thank you Edward R. Murrow.......
No, Edward R Murrow got his facts straight.
Your posterior is worth more than a movie prop - protect your posterior! Only YOU can protect YOUR posterior.
She was placed in that position by her employer because of her employer's insistence in continuing with on track activities despite having been refused permission two times in writing to do what her employer was doing.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Then shouldn't they be suing the production co.
Oh yea, they probably have no money and CSX does... never mind.
CSX is the party under attack here. A counter suit means that you are filing against someone, the girl's family, who has sued CSX.
The message in NOT defending, as Schlimm seems to favor, is that the CSX will pay the families of all trespassers who by definition got themselves killed through their own stupidity. This case is a bit different in that the production company ordered the girl to her death knowing that they did not have permission the be on CSX property. If CSX fails to defend itself, they will be easy pickings for the families all of trespassers. That is as sensible as unilateral disarmament.
The message CSX is sending is that they will not be the victim in these cases. As I said before good on them. BTW any railroad will defend itself in such cases. If someone does not like the optics they do not understand what is going on, or they think business are some kind of pinyata open to attack by anyone regardless of the actual responsability.
Mac
Mabee sending a clear message to the public about trespassing is more important then sending a 'warm fuzzy' message.
Perhaps if they win they will send an even 'warmer and fuzzier' message by donating a portion of the proceedes to the victum's next of kin while also sending the 'don't trespass' message as well.
schlimm n012944 schlimm No wonder CSX has the worst reputation of the major railroads. According to whom? Talk to folks outside the industry. Most either 1. never heard of it, 2. think it's a cleaning product or 3. regard it as a cheap, backward-thinking and rundown railroad. Take your pick.
n012944 schlimm No wonder CSX has the worst reputation of the major railroads. According to whom?
schlimm No wonder CSX has the worst reputation of the major railroads.
No wonder CSX has the worst reputation of the major railroads.
According to whom?
Oh, "experts".....
BTW, you might want to talk to more people.
http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/most-admired/2012/snapshots/2069.html
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/csx-named-one-of-worlds-most-admired-companies-by-fortune-magazine-2014-02-27
"CSX Corporation CSX, -0.08%today announced that it has been named one of the World's Most Admired Companies in 2014, according to a survey published by FORTUNE Magazine."
"The World's Most Admired Companies list is voted on by executives, directors and analysts across all industries."
FYI, I put the word ALL in bold. No doubt that includes people "outside the industry"
Most likely, John Snow the ex-CEO that tried everything he knew how to take the company down during his tenure until he became the Secretary of the Treasury and stuffed his own treasury with his 'Golden Parachute' when he departed CSX - leaving it worse than he found it. He can't stand that all his policies have been undone and the company is prospering and restoring some of the facilities he closed.
Deleted
rdamon CSX also said 27-year-old Jones was partly to blame for her own death because she “failed to exercise ordinary and responsible care for her own safety.” Not going to win any PR points, but clearly trying to establish blame with the film crew.
CSX also said 27-year-old Jones was partly to blame for her own death because she “failed to exercise ordinary and responsible care for her own safety.”
Not going to win any PR points, but clearly trying to establish blame with the film crew.
Well, there you go. Obviously the CSX cost-cutters and lawyers have a lot more clout internally than the marketing and PR departments. No wonder CSX has the worst reputation of the major railroads.
I don’t think the CSX countersuit has anything to do with spanking the trespassers and making an example out of them. I think it is a critical and essential part of the CSX defense against the suit against them. And I agree that their may be some risk in the optics of suing the relatives of the deceased.
This article ..
http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-09-03/story/csx-says-it-warned-film-crew-members-killed-and-injured-making-movie
Has this line in it ..
Where's the faulty logic? I said CSX was not to blame, legally. This is not about that. It is about public image. For the CSX to portray itself as victims is pathetic and laughable. I can imagine some comedy spot (Jon Stewart?) showing a CSX locomotive side-by-side with a body or wrecked auto alongside the tracks and the caption, "Who's the victim?"
Sorry schlimm but that's faulty logic. It's like saying the knife was guilty of the stabbing rather than the person wielding it. CSX and the train crew were additional victims. The locomotive was the inanimate knife in this instance. It will be shown in court that the film company is the guilty party.
edblysard I seem to recall in the graffiti thread you were all for railroads pursuing and prosecuting any trespasser. Here is the absolute example of the liability issue you backed Jim Norton on fully, so why do you care how outsiders see CSX over this?
I seem to recall in the graffiti thread you were all for railroads pursuing and prosecuting any trespasser.
Here is the absolute example of the liability issue you backed Jim Norton on fully, so why do you care how outsiders see CSX over this?
Ed: The graffiti trespassers if caught, should be prosecuted under jurisdictional, criminal law by the state. Private tort litigation to recover some financial damages when it was a CSX locomotive that killed the girl looks heartless and greedy. I understand the desire to "send a message" to photographers, film companies, etc. "Don't trespass" but there are better ways to do so without looking like a greedy, heartless company. In other words, don't muddy the message. I would hope CSX makes some positive gestures in memory of the girl who was killed.
Optics are very important for a business because public opinion does matter. Why do you think the railroads (not yours since it probably doesn't need to, invisible) spend millions on commercials, ads and other public messaging? To say "anything CSX does, or doesn’t do, will 'look bad in the eyes of outsiders'" is downright silly. Impression management and mitigating potentially bad PR is the job of a good in-house department or outside consultant. A siege mentality of the railroads vs John Q Public, NIMBYs, etc. is not a very good business practice. Sometimes it's smarter to reverse the old saying "I'd rather be right than be elected."
I would not jump to any conclusions about who will win their suit. It may look obvious, but skilled lawyers can turn that upside down. About ten years ago, there was a high profile legal case about a grade crossing accident in Anoka, MN on the BNSF.
It looked like a slam dunk for the railroad, but then the plaintiff lawyers razzle-dazzled the court with confusing issues of data handling and convinced them that BNSF was being dishonest. Nobody could prove whether the crossing protection worked or not, but since the court had been led to distrust BSNF, it was unable to be convinced that BNSF was right in asserting that the protection worked.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.