BaltACD That would be a waste of time. Why would a judge who had already refused a request for summary judgement vacate the verdict? It would be admitting that he should have granted the request for summary judgement. If he vacates the verdict he is admitting that there never should have been a trial. Hopefully a superior court will have a clear head. tdmidget How could an appeal have been heard on a verdict from 3 PM today? Appeal to the trial judge to reject the virdict. Home Town judge and home town jury. Snowballs have a better chance of becoming a snow man in hell, than the trial judge rejecting such a virdict - Emotions at play again!
That would be a waste of time. Why would a judge who had already refused a request for summary judgement vacate the verdict? It would be admitting that he should have granted the request for summary judgement. If he vacates the verdict he is admitting that there never should have been a trial. Hopefully a superior court will have a clear head.
tdmidget How could an appeal have been heard on a verdict from 3 PM today?
Appeal to the trial judge to reject the virdict. Home Town judge and home town jury. Snowballs have a better chance of becoming a snow man in hell, than the trial judge rejecting such a virdict - Emotions at play again!
BaltACD...Will be tossed on appeal!
I pray you're right, but fear the worst.
In a case like this, is the jury completely free to decide anything they want or are they compelled by the judge to apply their interpretation of specific laws to the facts brought forth in the trial?
BaltACDHome Town judge and home town jury.
An appeal to the next level (whatever that is in GA) might fare a little better. Takes a bit of the "hometown" out of the process.
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...
tdmidgetHow could an appeal have been heard on a verdict from 3 PM today?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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...
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...
That's just the excuse used to pad the bill.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
How could an appeal have been heard on a verdict from 3 PM today?
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. Will be tossed on appeal!
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.
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. Will be tossed on appeal!
tree68Of 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.
n012944http://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!
http://www.cbs46.com/story/35905081/jury-awards-39m-to-family-of-film-worker-killed-by-train
Absolutely!
Until we stop awarding money - including multi-million dollar settlements, to people who willfully violate somebody's right of property (as in this case), or right of life, and then get injured, killed, or somehow wronged, we will continue to have an extremely litigious society where a company or a person going about their regular business must stop to dole out huge sums to people who were in fact the negligent or criminal ones.
An "expensive model collector"
Director served a jail sentence. Film Allman Company is no more. (it will just show up again with a new name and resume "guerilla film-making", typical of the Hollyweird corporate contractor money games)...remains to be seen if he tries to bypass the court stipulation barring him from directing for nine years.
https://www.usnews.com/news/entertainment/articles/2016-03-23/allman-film-director-wins-release-after-year-in-georgia-jail
http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/midnight-rider-randall-miller-new-york-marine-dismissed-1202441675/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Dz8Xvnwdk
Does anyone know if the film director and/or his company are still in business? Is the director serving a sentence?
This may have been covered earlier in this thread or elsewhere, but a reminder may be appropriate.
schlimm You have a very biased view of our legal system.
You have a very biased view of our legal system.
I think the word you're looking for is perspective. I have a somewhat anti-lawyer view of our justice system.
The practical person simply cannot agree with the thinking of the vast majority of lawyers, because lawyers DO NOT look for the situation for practical sense, they look at it for whatever edge they can gain, whatever argument can be made, to satisfy their client, from winning a large settlment, to staying out of prison.
That's their job, and there's not really any blame I place on them.
But as a citizen who has to go through life, I find it incredibly unsavory to think that way. We're in a litigious society which has ended up with us labelling everything with every concieveable hazard. Now, there are good cases for warnings, and there are good injury lawsuits.
But when somebody sues (and may win) because CSX, a private company, did not slow their trains down, when somebody BROKE THE LAW to enter upon the right-of-way, and then fouled the tracks, that is where the practicalist scratches their head, but the lawyer dives into the infinite decimal place of law books and case history, to find whatever sliver of an argument that can be made for holding CSX accountable for the actions of a different person, who broke the law in order to find themselves in the dangerous situation, which would be dangerous to any sane person.
This sort of thing bleeds billions from the economy annually. We need TORT reform, and the sooner the better.
We have a system which rewards the lawsuit, not personal responsibility.
When you enter railroad property unsolicited, as in trespassing, as in breaking federal law, you are a criminal, not the victim of the railroad's "negligence" when you get hit. Trains travel on clearly defined tracks, and in order to be hit, you must be among them.
Think of it this way: are we suing the people who should have known, and had the responsibility to know, in order to stop the event? No, we're not. We're suing people whose property rights were violated. The railroad is in fact a victim, not a negligent party. It was the producers who violated federal law, and were negligent in placing their employees in danger.
Again, it isn't that I hate lawyers. Rather, I loathe the thinking necessitated by their job, and the damage years of frivilous litigation has done to our society.
Saturnalia Euclid Saturnalia If every train reported every trespasser, and the expectation was that following trains would have to slow down, then railroads would literally go nowhere. Quote from one news story of the trial: Jones’ lawyers introduced CSX’s employee policy that stated that conductors must “immediately notify a dispatcher of any unauthorized outside party on a track or right of way … Be especially cautious around bridges and tunnels.” According to that information, it is a CSX rule that employees must notify the dispatcher of all trespassers. I would not conclude that this discovery and notification then necessarily leads to a requirement to order following trains to slow down. I suspect that this type of thing would be handled on a case by case basis. Right. What I'm saying is that the lawyer's arguments will obviously be along a frivilous line which no sane person would expect (that every train who sees a trespasser shall make following trains aware, and they should then approach at a signficantly reduced speed). It's a major issue with the justice system, and why we all tend to hate it, because they deal with twisted words or literal meanings depending on what they need, while the rest of us actually act largely in accordance with common sense and cause-and-effect logic, by practical necessity. If we all worked the risk out of our lives like lawyers argue we *should*, then we'd all be hidden behind ten feet of bubble wrap and sit in bed all day. Oh wait...that's unhealthy too!
Euclid Saturnalia If every train reported every trespasser, and the expectation was that following trains would have to slow down, then railroads would literally go nowhere. Quote from one news story of the trial: Jones’ lawyers introduced CSX’s employee policy that stated that conductors must “immediately notify a dispatcher of any unauthorized outside party on a track or right of way … Be especially cautious around bridges and tunnels.” According to that information, it is a CSX rule that employees must notify the dispatcher of all trespassers. I would not conclude that this discovery and notification then necessarily leads to a requirement to order following trains to slow down. I suspect that this type of thing would be handled on a case by case basis.
Saturnalia If every train reported every trespasser, and the expectation was that following trains would have to slow down, then railroads would literally go nowhere.
Quote from one news story of the trial:
Jones’ lawyers introduced CSX’s employee policy that stated that conductors must “immediately notify a dispatcher of any unauthorized outside party on a track or right of way … Be especially cautious around bridges and tunnels.”
According to that information, it is a CSX rule that employees must notify the dispatcher of all trespassers. I would not conclude that this discovery and notification then necessarily leads to a requirement to order following trains to slow down. I suspect that this type of thing would be handled on a case by case basis.
Right. What I'm saying is that the lawyer's arguments will obviously be along a frivilous line which no sane person would expect (that every train who sees a trespasser shall make following trains aware, and they should then approach at a signficantly reduced speed).
It's a major issue with the justice system, and why we all tend to hate it, because they deal with twisted words or literal meanings depending on what they need, while the rest of us actually act largely in accordance with common sense and cause-and-effect logic, by practical necessity.
If we all worked the risk out of our lives like lawyers argue we *should*, then we'd all be hidden behind ten feet of bubble wrap and sit in bed all day.
Oh wait...that's unhealthy too!
Due to web site posting comment on wrong thread here it is properly situated.
Posted by blue streak 1 on Sunday, July 16, 2017 11:56 AM
Thought. -- A young person trying to break into the film / TV business. Even with experience around trains would be extremely reluctant to disobey a director's order to get on the bridge. If I disobeyed would probably expect to not only be fired but black balled ?
Euclid BaltACD The visual of personnel actually on the bridge is prima facia evidence of trespassing at that point in time. The track structure and bridge are evidence to the film personnel that they are trespassing without any authority to be where they are. Yes, and that is apparently what the visual evidence from the crew and video of train #2 shows, that is, the film crew was trespassing. But this runs counter to a wide belief here that the facts are that the film crew did not trespass until after train #2 had passed. And therefore the people who believe that version of the facts, in turn conclude that the crew of train #2 had no duty to report the trespassing because the film crew was not on the CSX property at that point. So there are two conflicting versions of the story, one indicating trespass at the time train #2 passed, and the other indicating no trespass until train #2 had passed. That is the point I was making in the above post.
BaltACD The visual of personnel actually on the bridge is prima facia evidence of trespassing at that point in time. The track structure and bridge are evidence to the film personnel that they are trespassing without any authority to be where they are.
Yes, and that is apparently what the visual evidence from the crew and video of train #2 shows, that is, the film crew was trespassing.
But this runs counter to a wide belief here that the facts are that the film crew did not trespass until after train #2 had passed. And therefore the people who believe that version of the facts, in turn conclude that the crew of train #2 had no duty to report the trespassing because the film crew was not on the CSX property at that point.
So there are two conflicting versions of the story, one indicating trespass at the time train #2 passed, and the other indicating no trespass until train #2 had passed.
That is the point I was making in the above post.
Remember, Rayonier owns both sides of the CSX right of way. I am certain Rayonier personnel needing to access the other side of their property ALWAYS go to the road crossing to cross from one side of their property to the other.[/sarcasm]
BaltACDThe visual of personnel actually on the bridge is prima facia evidence of trespassing at that point in time. The track structure and bridge are evidence to the film personnel that they are trespassing without any authority to be where they are.
The property line between being legally on Rayonier property and trespassing on CSX property is not marked for trains passing personnel in the area sufficient to acknowledge that people in that area are in fact trespassing and not on Rayonier property. Rayonier has the right to have people on their property.
The visual of personnel actually on the bridge is prima facia evidence of trespassing at that point in time. The track structure and bridge are evidence to the film personnel that they are trespassing without any authority to be where they are.
Let's see -- a film newbie wanting to advance in the film / TV business. If Newbie knew of RR dangers but director ordered Newbie onto tracks how (s)he could refuse?. Refuse: then expect to be fired and blacklisted ?
Norm48327 Euclid This is from the NTSB report: On the afternoon of February 20, 2014, the film crew arrived at the Rayonier property, with the intent to film at and around the CSX bridge over the Altamaha River. Rayonier personnel escorted the film crew through their property to the railroad right-of-way, where the first-assistant director informed the film crew that two trains would pass and then filming would begin. The investigation revealed that the film crew complied with the work directions of the film director and first-assistant director. This was prior to the passage of the two trains that preceded the third train that hit the filming set. It says the film crew was escorted to the right of way. Did the film crew just stand there at the boundary of the right of way and wait for the first two trains to pass? OR—in preparation for filming, did the film crew enter the right of way immediately upon being escorted to its edge, and begin trespassing? Is there a reference that clarifies this point? I don't believe there is, or at least I have not seen one. What I do believe is that the film crew followed the orders of the director while trusting him to keep everyone safe. It is obvious to me as an observer of the available information that the director had no intention of acknowledging the refusal of CSX to allow them on their property, and did trespass illegally. IMO, only the director is responsible for Sarah's death. While I have compassion for her parents, loss of a young life is hard to take, and I've been through that, in this instance I believe CSX is in no way responsible. Given my opinion it is unlikely the plaintiff's attorney would allow me to be seated on the jury.
Euclid This is from the NTSB report: On the afternoon of February 20, 2014, the film crew arrived at the Rayonier property, with the intent to film at and around the CSX bridge over the Altamaha River. Rayonier personnel escorted the film crew through their property to the railroad right-of-way, where the first-assistant director informed the film crew that two trains would pass and then filming would begin. The investigation revealed that the film crew complied with the work directions of the film director and first-assistant director. This was prior to the passage of the two trains that preceded the third train that hit the filming set. It says the film crew was escorted to the right of way. Did the film crew just stand there at the boundary of the right of way and wait for the first two trains to pass? OR—in preparation for filming, did the film crew enter the right of way immediately upon being escorted to its edge, and begin trespassing? Is there a reference that clarifies this point?
This is from the NTSB report:
On the afternoon of February 20, 2014, the film crew arrived at the Rayonier property, with the intent to film at and around the CSX bridge over the Altamaha River. Rayonier personnel escorted the film crew through their property to the railroad right-of-way, where the first-assistant director informed the film crew that two trains would pass and then filming would begin. The investigation revealed that the film crew complied with the work directions of the film director and first-assistant director.
This was prior to the passage of the two trains that preceded the third train that hit the filming set. It says the film crew was escorted to the right of way.
Did the film crew just stand there at the boundary of the right of way and wait for the first two trains to pass?
OR—in preparation for filming, did the film crew enter the right of way immediately upon being escorted to its edge, and begin trespassing?
Is there a reference that clarifies this point?
I don't believe there is, or at least I have not seen one. What I do believe is that the film crew followed the orders of the director while trusting him to keep everyone safe. It is obvious to me as an observer of the available information that the director had no intention of acknowledging the refusal of CSX to allow them on their property, and did trespass illegally. IMO, only the director is responsible for Sarah's death. While I have compassion for her parents, loss of a young life is hard to take, and I've been through that, in this instance I believe CSX is in no way responsible. Given my opinion it is unlikely the plaintiff's attorney would allow me to be seated on the jury.
This point about exactly when the film crew began the trespassing which would have been seen by passing trains is most confusing. It seems to be a central part of the plaintiff’s case, so it would be nice if it were made clear for once. The NTSB report does not make it clear.
Apparently they have the locomotive video from the train #2, but not from train #1. Both of these trains preceded train #3 which struck the movie set. So what I would like to know is this:
Does the camera of train #2 show the film crew trespassing on CSX property?
Consider this quote from one news story:
Lowry [plaintiff attorney] had his technician cue up the video of the train that passed at 3:36 PM.
“This is about 45 minutes before the incident train,” he said. “You can see the trestle in the background as they are approaching,” Lowry said, pointing to the screen. “There are people right there next to the track and right here there are people right next to the track. They are literally feet from the track. This isn’t the general vicinity, this is right there. So at 3:36 PM we know that at least one train went by and saw people right next to the tracks. And as Mr. Jordan himself said, the purpose of this video is to show what the engineers and conductors saw. So because of their own admission, we know that the engineers and conductors saw people right next to the track.”
So clearly, they are talking about the video from train #2 showing the film crew trespassing on CSX property. They are not on Rayonier property, standing at the boundary threshold of CSX property, as has been alleged.
Norm
erikem WDGF BaltACD And how much forgiveness are they getting for killing one of their own? She trusted the people she was working for to run a reasonably safe production, and it killed her. In a sane world, no one would ever hire on with them again. There were several posts early in this discussion that made similar observations of what goes on in the film industry, especially in respect to the attitudes of many producers to rules and safety of the film crew. I would have thought a sane industry would have learned the lessons from the filming of the Twilight Zone movie.
WDGF BaltACD And how much forgiveness are they getting for killing one of their own? She trusted the people she was working for to run a reasonably safe production, and it killed her. In a sane world, no one would ever hire on with them again.
BaltACD And how much forgiveness are they getting for killing one of their own?
She trusted the people she was working for to run a reasonably safe production, and it killed her. In a sane world, no one would ever hire on with them again.
There were several posts early in this discussion that made similar observations of what goes on in the film industry, especially in respect to the attitudes of many producers to rules and safety of the film crew. I would have thought a sane industry would have learned the lessons from the filming of the Twilight Zone movie.
Didn't we have a stuntman killed in the filming of some show just this week?
http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/15/media/walking-dead-stuntman-death-amc/index.html
BaltACDAnd how much forgiveness are they getting for killing one of their own?
WDGF Norm48327 ...When do these people understand the meaning of the word NO? Many producers and directors in the production industry (which I DO have experience in) too often believe they know better that anyone else, and that rules are for "the little people," not them. I'm almost surprised they requested access, as it's often said to be "easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission."
Norm48327 ...When do these people understand the meaning of the word NO?
Many producers and directors in the production industry (which I DO have experience in) too often believe they know better that anyone else, and that rules are for "the little people," not them.
I'm almost surprised they requested access, as it's often said to be "easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission."
And how much forgiveness are they getting for killing one of their own?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.