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."
BaltACDCSX would not be performing their financial responsibility to their stockholders to settle this suit. Defend the suit and get their legal fees paid by the plaintiff attorney's that have filed a frivolous suit.
But having a jury trial with 12 people that don't know anything about railroad ops isn't a sure bet, either.
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
This NTSB report reads to me (again, I have zero RR experience) that the tracks were clear up until the train was very close. If I'm understanding this correctly, it seems to me there would have been no reason to apply braking until it was much to late to have made any difference.
I'm having a hard time finding any fault on the part of CSX, here.
This is nothing more the 'mining for money' by the plaintiff's attorney's on the hopes of a big pay day if CSX settles rather than defends. CSX would not be performing their financial responsibility to their stockholders to settle this suit. Defend the suit and get their legal fees paid by the plaintiff attorney's that have filed a frivolous suit.
I sincerely doubt that the dead girl's family has paid a fee to retain these ambulance chasers, whom I suspect are always looking for a settlement, not a trial.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimmThe relevant NTSB press release : The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the film crew’s unauthorized entry onto the CSX Transportation right-of-way at the Altamaha River bridge with personnel and equipment, despite CSX Transportation’s repeated denial of permission to access the railroad property.
I'm in agreement with schlimm. The preceding trains saw people NEAR the ROW, and were under no obligation to report their presence if they were not on railroad property. Fault does not lie on CSX's shoulders but does lie on those who chose to disregard the fact they had been denied access to the property and in spite of denials took their chances. IMO, it should be an open and shut verdict in favor of CSX.
That is not intended to say that I have no compassion for the young woman who lost her life or her parents. A young, and possibly productive life was lost in the name of profit on the part of the film producer. Sad indeed that this ever came to trial. The real criminal is not CSX but the producer and director who chose to ignore the declanaction of CSX to allow them on their private property. When do these people understand the meaning of the word NO?
Norm
schlimmThe relevant NTSB press release :
And the link to the relevant NTSB report, with photos.
RME I'm already sorry for contributing more to this thread, and I'd really like to comment further on legal strategies to put CSX on the deep-pockets hook for civil damages it has no real moral reason to be saddled with... but well to mention something that might be apropos here rather in the not-so-humorous humor thread: what's the difference between this thread's result of thoroughly pulverizing dead horses and dog food made from grinding up dead horses?
I'm already sorry for contributing more to this thread, and I'd really like to comment further on legal strategies to put CSX on the deep-pockets hook for civil damages it has no real moral reason to be saddled with... but
well
to mention something that might be apropos here rather in the not-so-humorous humor thread: what's the difference between this thread's result of thoroughly pulverizing dead horses and dog food made from grinding up dead horses?
The relevant NTSB press release : The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the film crew’s unauthorized entry onto the CSX Transportation right-of-way at the Altamaha River bridge with personnel and equipment, despite CSX Transportation’s repeated denial of permission to access the railroad property. Contributing to the accident was the adjacent property owner’s actions to facilitate the film crew’s access to the right-of-way and bridge.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
cx500 Euclid Whether they were on the right of way or not is reported both ways in two different news stories. Which just goes to prove the stupidity of holding a firm opinion based on news stories. The reality is that probably both news stories had major factual errors, misinterpretations and omissions, just different ones.
Euclid Whether they were on the right of way or not is reported both ways in two different news stories.
Which just goes to prove the stupidity of holding a firm opinion based on news stories. The reality is that probably both news stories had major factual errors, misinterpretations and omissions, just different ones.
Oh I think there are factual errors, but you have to go with what they give you. You can always change your assessment as the stories change. For instance, I do not believe that CSX experts said that dumping the air on the fatal train would have derailed it, as one news story reports. Nobody would have said that.
So I assume they said that dumping the air might have derailed the train, which of course is a true assertion without any risk.
Deggesty Were the people and the bed on the bridge when the preceding trains passed by? Were they on the right of way? If they were not even on the right of way, the crews of the previous trains had no responsibility to report their presence.
Were the people and the bed on the bridge when the preceding trains passed by? Were they on the right of way? If they were not even on the right of way, the crews of the previous trains had no responsibility to report their presence.
Whether they were on the right of way or not is reported both ways in two different news stories.
Johnny
SaturnaliaIf 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.
For instance, if someone were observed merely crossing the track and then proceeding on their way, I doubt the company would feel a need to warn and slow down following trains.
But that would be quite different from observing about 25 people clustered around a bridge approach. How common is that? It seems to me that a response to warn following trains in this case would be absolutely justified even if there were no rule requiring it.
schlimm Saturnalia I have about as much sympathy (hint: none at all) for protestors hit on freeways as I do for pedestrians hit and killed walking on the tracks. With a reasonable human being, it is possible to assign blame correctly yet simultaneously still have some sympathy for people close to the victim of a fatal accident.
Saturnalia I have about as much sympathy (hint: none at all) for protestors hit on freeways as I do for pedestrians hit and killed walking on the tracks.
With a reasonable human being, it is possible to assign blame correctly yet simultaneously still have some sympathy for people close to the victim of a fatal accident.
Yes.
Assigned blame: whoever jumps off a cliff, drinks rotten milk, or fouls railroad tracks.
Sympathy goes to: family of those who jumped off the cliff, drank rotten milk, or fouled railroad tracks.
All actions have consequences. Most consequences to most decision are minor if insignificant. There are, however, those actions whose consequences are so spectacularly bad that we anticipate people to notice that beforehand, and thus not do the action.
In this case, a group obviously ignored, knowingly or not, the dangers of the tracks. That's where this case comes in, because in the case of a group of people with a set leader (the film director), there is likely a reasonable assumption on the part of the subordinates that what the leader is saying is true, and in this case, said leader apparently told his subordinates that they had permission to be there.
The whole discovered vs undiscovered trespassing thing, while legal, is lame as applied to railroads. If every train reported every trespasser, and the expectation was that following trains would have to slow down, then railroads would literally go nowhere. Their fixed guideway, coupled with a right-of-way, lends itself to trespassers who aren't really in any direct danger.
The lawyers know this, of course, but their job is to represent their clients and find those legal crevices, not judge morality or cause and effect.
Euclid According to this legal principle, the first two trains that passed the film crew observed them trespassing,
According to this legal principle, the first two trains that passed the film crew observed them trespassing,
They did?
"Court filings by CSX attorneys say operators of the two trains that passed the crew before the crash had no legal obligation to alert anyone else. The video shows filmmakers weren't on the tracks or the bridge, but stood on property that doesn't belong to the railroad. "
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/07/08/trial-to-decide-if-railroad-shares-blame-in-movie-crew-death.html
An "expensive model collector"
EuclidAccording to this legal principle, the first two trains that passed the film crew observed them trespassing, so the film crew would be classified as “discovered trespassers.” This is why the plaintiff attorneys wanted the video recordings for the first two trains. They would prove that the members of the film crew were “discovered trespassers,” and thus place a burden on CSX to warn them of danger.
The problem is, the folks who were in charge of the film crew knew that two trains would be going through and likely remained clear of the tracks - especially knowing they didn't have permission to be there. If they were clear of the CSX ROW when those two trains passed, then CSX had no legal responsibility to do anything.
Most people, if they are going to do something wrong, will try to attract as little attention as possible. In all likelihood, they were nowhere near the bridge, and may have still been in their vehicles when the previous trains passed.
CSX also has no obligation to police the adjacent landowner's property. Even if the crew saw them on the adjacent property, clear of the ROW, they had no reason to suspect any wrongdoing. I seriously doubt that the crews knew anything about the requests for access to the bridge, and they likewise would have no idea whether the film crew had permission to be on Rayonier's property.
In addition, people adjacent to the tracks is hardly an unusual circumstance. A crew would have to had some indication that said potential trespassers would even be there by the time the next train came through.
That said, if the last crew through saw a crowd of people at the end of the bridge, with all of their equipment, then, sure, an advisory should have been issued. We'll have to see what develops.
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...
According to this legal principle, the first two trains that passed the film crew observed them trespassing, so the film crew would be classified as “discovered trespassers.” This is why the plaintiff attorneys wanted the video recordings for the first two trains. They would prove that the members of the film crew were “discovered trespassers,” and thus place a burden on CSX to warn them of danger.
https://premisesliability.uslegal.com/duty-owed-trespassers/
“Trespassers may be classified either as discovered or undiscovered. If a person is an undiscovered trespasser, then the landowner has a duty to refrain from willful or wanton misconduct. Whereas, if a landowner knows that trespassers have been on his/her land, then these persons are discovered trespassers to whom the landowner owes the duty of ordinary care to warn of danger.”
Murphy Siding Would we be having this discussion if they had set up the bed and movie equipment up in the middle of an interstate highway?
Would we be having this discussion if they had set up the bed and movie equipment up in the middle of an interstate highway?
No, it'd be the same case of placing your person in the "danger zone" of moving objects. I have about as much sympathy (hint: none at all) for protestors hit on freeways as I do for pedestrians hit and killed walking on the tracks.
There is ZERO excuse for being hit by a train when you're on the track, end of story.
There should be no debate. There should be no fault laid upon the train crew. There should be no fault found to the railroad.
If you jump off a cliff, you should expect an impact at the bottom. If you drink spoiled milk, you should expect to get sick. And if you occupy the railroad tracks, you should expect to get hit by a train.
Now I know you all know this, and probably agree, but I don't think this thread is long enough yet ;)
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
mudchicken ChuckCobleigh diningcar Perhaps the attorneys should replace the film crew on the reinnactment.
ChuckCobleigh diningcar Perhaps the attorneys should replace the film crew on the reinnactment.
diningcar Perhaps the attorneys should replace the film crew on the reinnactment.
Perhaps the attorneys should replace the film crew on the reinnactment.
Remember in the reinactment - save the bed at all costs!
If they had pitched the bed in the ditch, everyone would be breathing and talking today!
Has there been a previous post noting that Emergency braking starts at the front of the train ? Even if the EOT also works there is what a 15 second lag for all cars to be in emergency ? If ? the train had a bunch of empty cars in front they might be less effective. All our engineers probably will say train dynamics too complicated to predict ?T
zugmann Euclid If the train had only made a service application, the film crew could have probably finished their shoot and gotten off the bridge before the train arrived. And if the film crew would have kept their asses off the bridge, that young woman would probably be alive today. I know some people in this thread pretend to have ultimate knowledge and would know exactly what they would have done, even though thtey nevewr laid a hand on the automatic handle. But most of us are human and do the best we can.
Euclid If the train had only made a service application, the film crew could have probably finished their shoot and gotten off the bridge before the train arrived.
And if the film crew would have kept their asses off the bridge, that young woman would probably be alive today.
I know some people in this thread pretend to have ultimate knowledge and would know exactly what they would have done, even though thtey nevewr laid a hand on the automatic handle. But most of us are human and do the best we can.
But, Zug,
Bucky has "experience" and knows the answers to everything.
Don't believe me? Just ask him.
Wouldn't the only fair way to solve the derailment question be to re-enact the accident? To be fair, I think you'd want the attorneys and experts who think it wouldn't derail to be riding the train. If they are sure in their theories, they should have no qualms about it. Maybe for their comfort they could ride at the end boxcar or something.
Euclid n012944 Euclid We discussed this in an earlier thread and I sought out some independent experts to get their take on it. So, how many "independent experts" did you have to ask until you got the answer you were looking for? Two out of two.
n012944 Euclid We discussed this in an earlier thread and I sought out some independent experts to get their take on it. So, how many "independent experts" did you have to ask until you got the answer you were looking for?
Euclid We discussed this in an earlier thread and I sought out some independent experts to get their take on it.
We discussed this in an earlier thread and I sought out some independent experts to get their take on it.
So, how many "independent experts" did you have to ask until you got the answer you were looking for?
Two out of two.
Well, isn't that just convenient....
"And if the film crew would have kept their asses off the bridge, that young woman would probably be alive today."
Zug, your cmment is excellent.
EuclidIf the train had only made a service application, the film crew could have probably finished their shoot and gotten off the bridge before the train arrived.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.