Trains.com

Film crew death

53601 views
495 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, July 20, 2017 2:55 AM

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.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, July 20, 2017 2:48 AM

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.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 4:23 PM

BaltACD
Your acting like the predatory male in a sexual assult - NO means NO!

When did I ever say otherwise?

 

RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:57 PM
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:46 PM

Euclid
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. 

Your acting like the predatory male in a sexual assult - NO means NO!

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 1:06 PM

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.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 12:19 PM

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. 

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 11:49 AM

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?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 11:25 AM

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.  

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 11:07 AM

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. 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 10:57 AM

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!

              

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:16 AM

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


  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,023 posts
Posted by tree68 on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:07 AM

Euclid
It 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.

Euclid
The 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.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 8:07 AM

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?     

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 7:49 AM

BOB WITHORN

BaltACD
And one wonders why 'healthcare' is out of control - it's too big a profit center for too many people that could care less whether anyone lives a normal life, in fact the prefer that they die or be hideously maimed or otherwise debilitated - as long as billable hours can be racked up.

 

Larry,  Very true, my daughter is an emergency dept Doc and at times it gets that way.

Balt, Be careful of generalaties, MOST Docs actually give a 'Darn' about your well being. After 9-12 hours of 'my finger hurts', 'I need pain meds', 'I've got a head ache' and your the next one in they can get a little short fused. Due to lawyers, the way the insurance industry decides to pay out using "NON" medical personel to determine what medical procedures will be used, (selectively paid) is .......never mind

Doctors are just the tip of Healthcare - just like an iceberg.  Doctor fees (at least those I have dealt with for my colon cancer, Bennet's fractured thumb, broken radius, Type 2 Diabetes and viral pneumonia have priced their services in what seemed to me to be a reasonable manner. (Note through all the above I was covered by the Contract railroad employees health insurance, with the exception of the viral pneumonia that happened after I retired, which for whatever reasons Medicare did not cover.)

But, as I said Doctors are just the tip.  The rest of the healthcare iceberg becomes the hospitals, the medical testing industry, the medical device industry, the rehabilitation industry, the drug industry, the malpractice legal industry and finally the medical insurance industry. Once you have created a 'industry' the profit motive begins to out weigh the products and services provided.  The deeper ones health has to progress into the entire healthcare iceberg, the more profits have to be found off each individual that enters the system (not to mention the frauds that get purpertrated by every player in the system including the patient).  Doctors with the best of intentions have become the gate keepers that facilitate entry into the entire healthcare debacle.  Would that I had the answers to the problems; but charades that have been taken place by Congress about 'healthcare' are not the answer either as each party wants to out game the other - people be damned.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 7:17 AM

I was convinced from the beginnig that Miller is solely responsible and is 100% responsible.  Nobody else is responsible.  To get a very clear NO from CSX and then go ahead anyway is akin to me, like driving an automobile on a crowded sidewalk.  Sure the crew migh possibly have reported tresspassers.  But not if this kind of sight was frequent with Rayonier personel, which it probably was.  Sure the film company should have had safeguards to second guess Miller in such a dangerous situationl.  Sure Rayoner itself should have checked with CSX and not depended solely on Miller's word.

But Miller was the liar and it is his responsibility.

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • From: Flint or Grand Rapids, Mi or Elkhart, It Depends on the day
  • 573 posts
Posted by BOB WITHORN on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 6:52 AM

[quote user="BaltACD"]

 

 
tree68
Of course, the jury figured that big, bad railroad just had to be somehow responsible for that poor girl's death.  It just couldn't be anybody else.

I'm with Saturnalia on tort reform.  That it's needed is very obvious in the medical field.  Everyone has to CYA, so instead of telling you you've got a headache because you drank too much last night, you get a cat scan and a plethora of other tests...

 

 

And one wonders why 'healthcare' is out of control - it's too big a profit center for too many people that could care less whether anyone lives a normal life, in fact the prefer that they die or be hideously maimed or otherwise debilitated - as long as billable hours can be racked up.

 

Larry,  Very true, my daughter is an emergency dept Doc and at times it gets that way.

 

Balt, Be careful of generalaties, MOST Docs actually give a 'Darn' about your well being. After 9-12 hours of 'my finger hurts', 'I need pain meds', 'I've got a head ache' and your the next one in they can get a little short fused. Due to lawyers, the way the insurance industry decides to pay out using "NON" medical personel to determine what medical procedures will be used, (selectively paid) is .......never mind

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 9:58 PM

tree68

 

 
ACY Tom
...but I fail to see how deep pockets equals culpability or legal liability. 

 

It doesn't - but that's where the money is, so they're going to go after it.

Unfortunately, it's a very common practice.

 

How about all of the railroads get together and form a consortium that would help every railroad fight off these frivolous lawsuits--a sort of pooled resource available to every member. Then the railroads could agree to NOT settle. One railroad might have deep pockets, but all the railroads together would be a nearly-insurmountable obstacle.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 9:43 PM

schlimm
 
BaltACD
 
n012944
http://www.cbs46.com/story/35905081/jury-awards-39m-to-family-of-film-worker-killed-by-train 

3.9 million....

Foamers need to remember this case when they get bent out of shape for being reported by a train crew for taking pictures. 

Home town verdict.  Formulated on emotion, not on facts.  Will be tossed on appeal! 

Hometown?  The accident was in the Savannah area; the victim was from Atlanta.  Very different.

Georgia be Georgia!

Prime question in Georgia being if she was a Rambling Wreck or a Dawg.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2004
  • 707 posts
Posted by tdmidget on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 8:57 PM

The NTSB report is not admissable. A decent lawyer of course could get around this by calling the director as a witness and revealing that he did a year in jail for manslaughter for the crime. In fact call every one of the other defendants and let them admit to their liability, which they have to some degree by settleing.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 8:32 PM

BaltACD

 

 
n012944
http://www.cbs46.com/story/35905081/jury-awards-39m-to-family-of-film-worker-killed-by-train 

3.9 million....

Foamers need to remember this case when they get bent out of shape for being reported by a train crew for taking pictures.

 

Home town verdict.  Formulated on emotion, not on facts.  Will be tossed on appeal!

 

Hometown?  The accident was in the Savannah area; the victim was from Atlanta.  Very different.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 8:20 PM

GERALD L MCFARLANE JR
 
zugmann

From http://buzz.blog.ajc.com/2017/07/17/jury-awards-11-2-million/

"The jury assigned varying levels of liability: CSX is liable for 35 percent or roughly $3.92 million; Miller for 28 percent or $3.14 million, Rayonier (the corporation that owns the land where the tracks are located), 18 percent or about 2 million, Savin and first AD Hillary Schwartz 7 percent or about $785,000 and producer Jay Sedrish 5 percent or about $561,000"  

If anyone bothered to read, all other parties involved have already SETTLED with the family...CSX is the only one that went to trial, and rightfully so...I highly doubt they're liable for anything.  There's nothing saying the two previous train crews saw anyone trespassing to report to dispatchers, and I belive the NTSB report put the entire blame on the production company and others working on the film.

If anyone, beyond the film company is responsible, it is Rayonier.  They had a representative on site who let the film company into the area.  If the film company lied to the Rayonier representative about having permission to occupy CSX property (and I am sure the question got asked - or the Rayonier rep should be fired forth with for deriliction of duty), then that puts Rayonier & CSX in the clear with CSX having declined permission to the film company two times in writing.  If the film company did not lie then Rayonier becomes the responsible party for allowing the film company to occupy other than Rayonier property.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 8:10 PM

GERALD L MCFARLANE JR

 

 
zugmann

From http://buzz.blog.ajc.com/2017/07/17/jury-awards-11-2-million/

"The jury assigned varying levels of liability: CSX is liable for 35 percent or roughly $3.92 million; Miller for 28 percent or $3.14 million, Rayonier (the corporation that owns the land where the tracks are located), 18 percent or about 2 million, Savin and first AD Hillary Schwartz 7 percent or about $785,000 and producer Jay Sedrish 5 percent or about $561,000" 

 

 

If anyone bothered to read, all other parties involved have already SETTLED with the family...CSX is the only one that went to trial, and rightfully so...I highly doubt they're liable for anything.  There's nothing saying the two previous train crews saw anyone trespassing to report to dispatchers, and I belive the NTSB report put the entire blame on the production company and others working on the film.

 

I don't know what you read - but yeah, a jury found Csx partially liable.

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

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,023 posts
Posted by tree68 on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 8:01 PM

ACY Tom
...but I fail to see how deep pockets equals culpability or legal liability. 

It doesn't - but that's where the money is, so they're going to go after it.

Unfortunately, it's a very common practice.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 376 posts
Posted by GERALD L MCFARLANE JR on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 7:25 PM

zugmann

From http://buzz.blog.ajc.com/2017/07/17/jury-awards-11-2-million/

"The jury assigned varying levels of liability: CSX is liable for 35 percent or roughly $3.92 million; Miller for 28 percent or $3.14 million, Rayonier (the corporation that owns the land where the tracks are located), 18 percent or about 2 million, Savin and first AD Hillary Schwartz 7 percent or about $785,000 and producer Jay Sedrish 5 percent or about $561,000" 

If anyone bothered to read, all other parties involved have already SETTLED with the family...CSX is the only one that went to trial, and rightfully so...I highly doubt they're liable for anything.  There's nothing saying the two previous train crews saw anyone trespassing to report to dispatchers, and I belive the NTSB report put the entire blame on the production company and others working on the film.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 6:58 PM

From http://buzz.blog.ajc.com/2017/07/17/jury-awards-11-2-million/

"The jury assigned varying levels of liability: CSX is liable for 35 percent or roughly $3.92 million; Miller for 28 percent or $3.14 million, Rayonier (the corporation that owns the land where the tracks are located), 18 percent or about 2 million, Savin and first AD Hillary Schwartz 7 percent or about $785,000 and producer Jay Sedrish 5 percent or about $561,000"

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

RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 6:31 PM

ACY Tom
In all of this, I have not heard of monetary damages being assessed against the Director, Producers, Backers, or Rayonier who led them across their property to the site without informing CSX.

Just to be clear, the trial award was 11-odd million.  The CSX 'share' of responsibility is 35%.  Rayonier, the production company, and other culpable film-crew members have percentages of liability as well.

Now watch for the attempts at asset-swapping and -hiding, technical bankruptcies, and other machination that will leave CSX and Rayonier the 'deep pockets' for most of the actual award.

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 4:57 PM

I have to say this flies in the face of logic. In all of this, I have not heard of monetary damages being assessed against the Director, Producers, Backers, or Rayonier who led them across their property to the site without informing CSX.

I am a Progressive and certainly no raving Capitalist, and no particular fan of CSX, but I fail to see how deep pockets equals culpability or legal liability. 

Tom

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 4:55 PM

(Error)

Tom

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • 2,515 posts
Posted by Electroliner 1935 on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 4:18 PM

BaltACD
Home town verdict.  Formulated on emotion, not on facts.  Will be tossed on appeal!

Balt, I certainly hope so. But if this judge (and I use the title only) was good at dotting all of the I's and crossing the T's, the appeals court may not have the cause to reverse. Lets hope reason prevails. 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy