The role of Rayonier needs clarification. I understand they escorted the film crew onto their property and showed them where CSX could be accessed from Rayonier property. That much seems fairly well established.
But I recall it being reported that they also contacted CSX and asked for permssion on behalf of the film company. If so, what did CSX tell Rayonier in response to their request for permission for the film crew?
I see it implied here that Miller deceived Rayonier by telling them that he had permission from CSX. What is the evidence for that?
It sounds to me that Rayonier was merely the most convenient first party to approach for ideas about how to film on the bridge. I understand that Rayonier was enthusiastic about the filming and offered to help by the use of their land and by getting CSX on board. Apparently Rayonier has a business relationship with CSX, and it was felt that they would have some positive influence on CSX to get them to give permission and cooperate in the filming.
It is said that CSX was initially supportive of the filming project on their bridge, but ultimately declined. It has also been said that there were many emails over an considerable number of days, apparently involving CSX, Rayonier, and the filming company.
The news implies that Rayonier is partly responsible because they excorted the film crew onto CSX property. What exactly does that mean?
EuclidIt is said that CSX was initially supportive of the filming project on their bridge, but ultimately declined.
Everything I've seen says that CSX shot the idea down from the start. Based on what I know of CSX, this does not surprise me. They are rarely receptive to anything that is not their own.
EuclidThe news implies that Rayonier is partly responsible because they escorted the film crew onto CSX property. What exactly does that mean?
Based on what I've read, Rayonier escorted the crew onto their own property, and provided information on rail traffic. Inasmuch as the Rayonier property adjoins the CSX ROW, it could probably be argued that Rayonier assisted the film crew with access, if not actually onto CSX property.
The transcript of the trial would be useful. I'm sure it will be available at some point.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Bucky,
Deceptions are a way of life and lawyers are expert at that. Neither you or I have inside information regarding the jury's decision to award damges and proclaiming CSX was partly at fault. In my mind it was simply a sympathetic jury awarding the agreived settlement money for lack of a better defense.
IMO, every thing in court wa staged by the atorneys who were seeking a settement. I would hope that in the future that attitude would change.
Norm
There are numerous Tree Farms along the route between Jacksonville and Savannah. Both Rayonier and other paper companies own these farms. Where these farms intersect with public roads they are normally fenced and gated to prevent unauthorized access. The Rayonier representative would have had to let the film company personnel onto Rayonier property. In the area of the incident, Rayonier property is on both sides of the CSX right of way.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDThe Rayonier representative would have had to let the film company personnel onto Rayonier property. In the area of the incident, Rayonier property is on both sides of the CSX right of way.
It does not seem like that action alone would make Rayonier repsonsible for the accident in any way.
Euclid BaltACD The Rayonier representative would have had to let the film company personnel onto Rayonier property. In the area of the incident, Rayonier property is on both sides of the CSX right of way. It does not seem like that action alone would make Rayonier repsonsible for the accident in any way.
BaltACD The Rayonier representative would have had to let the film company personnel onto Rayonier property. In the area of the incident, Rayonier property is on both sides of the CSX right of way.
Rayonier representative did not keep the film crew on Rayonier property.
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD The Rayonier representative would have had to let the film company personnel onto Rayonier property. In the area of the incident, Rayonier property is on both sides of the CSX right of way. It does not seem like that action alone would make Rayonier repsonsible for the accident in any way. Rayonier representative did not keep the film crew on Rayonier property.
The Rayonier rep allowed the film crew onto Rayonier property. Why would he be obligated to prevent the film crew from entering other private property without permission.
Am I obligated to prevent my neighbors from trespassing onto the property of other neighbors?
What is needed is a clearly detailed record of the events that led up to the trestle accident. The news media has covered every inch of it, but every sentence is poorly written in a way that conveys multiple, often conflicting meanings. This is the kind of writing where the writer knows what he/she wants to say, writes it out, and fails to see that the writing can be interpreted in more than one way.
At this point all of the details are known, and probably are public record. All that is needed is a good writer that can put those details together, and finally tell us what happened.
To me, there is only one party responsible, not the film company, not Rayoner, not CSX, only Miller. Only Miller. He lied. His lie allowed the death to happen. If he had not lied, there would have been no accident, no trespassing, and no death.
Regarding the crew not reporting trespassing. This might hold water if the second train crew actually saw people on the bridge. But trespassing off the bridge was probably a regular occurance by Rayoner people given Rayoner's ownership of land on both sides of the railroad. Here, the relationship between Rayoner and the railroad is on the railroad's side.
I too, am pretty certain CSX said "no" from the beginning, with the small possibility that a minor fuctionary first contacted said "We will look into it," passing the decision on to someone higher up. And "we will look into it" does not constitute a Yes.
Never mind the train. Suppose one of the crew got caught between ties or something and just fell off the bridge. If CSX had said "yes" they would be liable.
This issue is important to me because there are many, many politicians that are lieing and are causing deaths, simply distorting historical facts, including lieing heads of state.
EuclidWhat is needed is a clearly detailed record of the events that led up to the trestle accident. The news media has covered every inch of it, but every sentence is poorly written in a way that conveys multiple, often conflicting meanings. This is the kind of writing where the writer knows what he/she wants to say, writes it out, and fails to see that the writing can be interpreted in more than one way. At this point all of the details are known, and probably are public record. All that is needed is a good writer that can put those details together, and finally tell us what happened.
Your acting like the predatory male in a sexual assult - NO means NO!
Some comments from the parents, in the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-sarah-jones-parents-20170718-htmlstory.html
BaltACDYour acting like the predatory male in a sexual assult - NO means NO!
When did I ever say otherwise?
The family is mistaken about the application of brakes. It would have not made any difference whatsoever with regard to the life of the girl, because the stopping distance was far far greater than the sight distance. There was the possibiliiy of a train derailment on the trestle with greater loss of life, including other members of the film crew as well as the train crew.
Note that their campaign for greater safety targets film production, not railroad operations.
Again, no means no and CSX said no. They had no reason to assume their no would be violated.
Miller was 100% at fault. To blame anyone else, Rayoner, CSX, other members of the film crew, is a demand that human beings be all-knowing and perfect. We are not G_ds. A lie caused the death, and Miller was the liar.
And someone can pass this on to the family and they can contact me at daveklepper@yahoo.com.
They may wish to think about the fact that if people who are supposed to be role models for all Americans get off free as bird when caught lieing, the demand to tell the truth at all critical moments may seem less important to the average American citizen.
So lieing politicians in high places have more guilt in this girl's passing than does CSX, in my opinion.
I don't need to name the person, who in my opinion, started the lieing habit in high places. That would be political.
daveklepper The family is mistaken about the application of brakes. It would have not made any difference whatsoever with regard to the life of the girl, because the stopping distance was far far greater than the sight distance. There was the possibiliiy of a train derailment on the trestle with greater loss of life, including other members of the film crew as well as the train crew. Note that their campaign for greater safety targets film production, not railroad operations. Again, no means no and CSX said no. They had no reason to assume their no would be violated. Miller was 100% at fault. To blame anyone else, Rayoner, CSX, other members of the film crew, is a demand that human beings be all-knowing and perfect. We are not G_ds. A lie caused the death, and Miller was the liar.
Proportional responsibility is a part of tort law. The engineer made no attempt to even slow down with a service brake application. That is where some fault lies, as he might well have hit the bed with far less impact and thus the girl might have survived. Maybe not. But the jury had access to far more information than anyone on the forum.
Dismissing juries and the judicial system with contemp,t as many do on here, is shameful. It is a right for which our ancestors fought, which many folks less fortunate in the world do not have.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Euclid BaltACD Euclid BaltACD The Rayonier representative would have had to let the film company personnel onto Rayonier property. In the area of the incident, Rayonier property is on both sides of the CSX right of way. It does not seem like that action alone would make Rayonier repsonsible for the accident in any way. Rayonier representative did not keep the film crew on Rayonier property. The Rayonier rep allowed the film crew onto Rayonier property. Why would he be obligated to prevent the film crew from entering other private property without permission. Am I obligated to prevent my neighbors from trespassing onto the property of other neighbors?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I must have served on at least 50 Juries in my life in the USA.
I still say that Miller had total responsibility. Schlimm, did you ever consider that seeing a bed on a track ahead of you might make you think you are halucinating before you realize that it is real and then apply the brake?
Rembember that our judicial sysem has in fact condemned people to death who were later found innocent. I am not condemning the Judicial system in general. But I have every right to express an opinion about the verdict. Just as your crticism of certain political leaders does not mean that you condemn the USA political system or Democracy in general. The Judicial system is the best system available. But it is not perfect, and we are all human beings, not G_ds.
The engineer saw a large object on the track. He probably had no idea what it was until he was told about it afterwards. When large objects appear on the track, it is a sign of great danger which good engineers constantly watch out for. When they see a large object, they don’t dismiss it as a hallucination.
Besides, the engineer explained his reason for not braking. He said an emergency application might have derailed the train, and that in turn may have killed people on the bridge.
So then why didn’t he use a service application? CSX’s own experts said that a service application would have almost stopped the train in time. They said a service application would have stopped the train 2 seconds after it struck the bed.
So a service application would have most likely prevented the death of Sarah Jones or injuries to others. For one thing, a service application slowing train to the extent that CXS experts say, would have allowed much more time to escape the danger zone. And it also would have slowed the train to almost nothing by the time it hit the bed.
And also: If the engineer was afraid that an emergency application would have put the film crew in danger due to causing a derailment, why did he make the emergency application immediately after hitting the bed? By then, it was too late to be of any help, and it occurred as the train was passing the film crew, which would have placed them in the worst proximity for being injured should the train have derailed. This nonsense about withholding an emergency application because it might derail the train is the very thing that leads to railroads paying off big settlements.
Two seconds after hitting the bed. There would not have been any life saved, then.
My understanding is he applied the brakes as soon as he was no longer on a curved trestle.
daveklepper Two seconds after hitting the bed. There would not have been any life saved, then.
He would have stopped two seconds after hitting the bed according to CSX experts. How fast is a train moving two seconds before it stops? I would estimate not more than 1/4 mph. As it was, the train hit the bed at around 58 mph. If he had made an service application, he would not have hit the bed at 58 mph and then stopped 2 seconds later. He would have hit the bed at hardly any speed and stopped about 6 feet later. It is a big difference.
Euclid daveklepper Two seconds after hitting the bed. There would not have been any life saved, then. He would have stopped two seconds after hitting the bed according to CSX experts. How fast is a train moving two seconds before it stops? I would estimate not more than 1/4 mph. As it was, the train hit the bed at around 58 mph. If he had made an service application, he would not have hit the bed at 58 mph and then stopped 2 seconds later. He would have hit the bed at hardly any speed and stopped about 6 feet later. It is a big difference.
We've left out the "human factor." First - "what's that on the tracks." Second - "They're moving, they'll be in the clear." Third - "What's that they're trying to move?"
I'm presuming that the engineer probably did reduce throttle almost immediately. That will be on the "tape" as well.
Going back to the "Miracle on the Hudson," that the airplane could have reached either of the airports in question was based on an immediate reaction to turn the plane back. It did not account for a "what the heck was that?" and "what's going on with the airplane?" reaction. Once those were factored in, the only choice became the water landing.
Thus I would contend that the ability to stop at the point suggested was based on an immediate application of the brakes when the bridge and its occupants came into view.
The 'victims' valued a studio prop - the bed - more than they valued their own safety. That is the cause of the death and the injuries. Pitch the bed off the bridge and SAVE YOURSELF!
Around and around we go...
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Dave,
Not to denigrate anyone's opinion on the subject but I agree with you. Taking responsibility for one's actiond has been forsaken in the name of getting a settlement in which only the lawyers profit. I was involved in such a situation in 2001, but thankfully got in contact with an attorney who had some sense. He basically said the pharmaceutal company never admited fault but had paid a lot of hush money.
I can't help but think the same applies to the railroads. Cheaper to give the plaintiffs some money that fight the decision in court. A travesty of justice in my mind.
Norm48327I can't help but think the same applies to the railroads. Cheaper to give the plaintiffs some money that fight the decision in court. A travesty of justice in my mind.
The "plaintiff's" have no reason not to try for money - if the sued entity settles, they (and their lawyers) get some cash. If it goes to trial, and they win, they get some cash. If they lose, their lawyer might send them a bill, but otherwise they get off scott free.
If the "plaintiffs" were on the hook for the railroad's legal fees in the event they lost, you can bet the railroad would be there with the "A" legal team. And the plaintiff's lawyers would be advising their clients not to bother with the suit in the first case, as their case didn't hold enough water anyhow...
tree68Thus I would contend that the ability to stop at the point suggested was based on an immediate application of the brakes when the bridge and its occupants came into view.
Yes, I can see some time lost in recognizing the nature of what was first seen. I do not know whether the CSX experts factored that into their stopping evaluations. All of the details could have been laid out and evaluated in order to present a good explanation and illustration of what did happen and what could have happened if brakes were applied, but as far as I know, that was never done.
The defense seems to have hung their hat on “no means no.” In any case, the issue was presented by the plaintiffs in the most effective way by stating that no braking was applied prior to impact. It is easy to understand, and sounds like negligence. So I think that took the prize for the plaintiffs.
If the brakes had been applied in emergency, and the train not derailed, the train would have stopped two seconds after hitting the bed according to expert testamony. But the train might have derailed. And a full service application would not have slowed the train as much as an emergency application. Even at ten miles per hour hitting the bed would have resulted in loss of life.
Only Miller is guilty because if he had not lied the accident simply would not have taken place. None of the others had the absolute control of the sitiuation that Miller had.
Again, if a certain politician had not started the lieing cycle in high places in the USA, possibly Miller would have thought twice about lieing. (And an important religious organization rewarded him for lieing?)
It is entirely possible that CSX is going to settle the case through negotialtion before appealing simply on the basis of public relations. I would not blame them for doing so, despite the implication of freedom for trespassing that such a settlement would imply.
My understanding is the stopping distance referred to an emergency applicaton, not a service application. Am I mistaken?
daveklepper Even at ten miles per hour hitting the bed would have resulted in loss of life.
Well sure, if they stood on the track and let themselves get run over, they would have been just as dead as getting hit at 58 mph. But everything changes when you slow the train to nearly stopping, and also take the time to do so, which lengthens the time to get out of the way.
And it would have been a lot slower than even 10 mph. No train that stops is moving 10 mph 2 seconds before stopping. I doubt it would have been moving more than ½ mph. If the train arrived at the bed site at that speed, the following would have been true:
The bed would not have been thrown with lethal force due to train impact.
The bed would not have broken up and thrown as shrapnel.
There would have been more than enough time to remove the bed from the track.
There would have been more than enough time for the crew to get off the bridge.
That is just with a service application. An emergency application would have stopped even quicker. Incidentally, the scenario referring to stopping two seconds after passing the film crew was with a service application. The same experts said that the reason for not making an emergency application was that it might have derailed the train, as the engineer had stated.
Admitting that you did not make an emergency application because it might derail the train is an admission that you realized there was an emergency that justified an emergency application. And certainly the facts that followed did confirm that there was a real emergency. So you are asking the jury to believe this incredible reasoning that the risk of derailing the train is a greater emergency than the actual emergency that is a known fact.
Forget it Dave. You're wasting your time.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.