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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.......
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Tom
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?
She also had no (legal) reason to be on the bridge. She could simply have told her boss "I ain't going there".
Norm
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.
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
True about the highlighted part, and yes, I feel the liability rests with the director, not CSX.
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
Well written edblysard.
This probably one of the few places still following the story after finding out Gregg Allman wasn't there.
"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.
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.
ACY 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
Just because he wasn't there because he knew permission hadn't been granted, doesn't mean that he was aware that they were going to say damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
Nothing says he looked the other way with that quote. He very well might've, but nothing in there says so.
rdamon Another article ... http://www.enterkom.com/enterprise/?p=14278 "Miller had fallen onto the tracks before the train arrived but the still photographer pulled him off, according to the witness, saving his life. The bed was then hit by the train and exploded. That debris hit and injured several people, including one seriously, who was airlifted to Savannah’s Memorial Health University Medical Center." Exploding Bed? I probably should have read that tag before I pulled it off!!
Another article ...
http://www.enterkom.com/enterprise/?p=14278
"Miller had fallen onto the tracks before the train arrived but the still photographer pulled him off, according to the witness, saving his life. The bed was then hit by the train and exploded. That debris hit and injured several people, including one seriously, who was airlifted to Savannah’s Memorial Health University Medical Center."
Exploding Bed?
I probably should have read that tag before I pulled it off!!
Found the following linked article referencing the " Film Crew Death" as was posted(TRAINS Forum) back in Feb of 2014. Ii was a sad occasion that lead to the death of one film crew member and was seemingly destined to wind up in a court to settle the sad affair.
It seem to have quite a bit of interest as it drifted off the current topics area page of the Forum.[ 198 Posts and 20,752 views ].
So I thought it only deserved some sort of closure in the Forum.
On October 31,2014 the TV Show 20/20 did a segment on the scene at the Altamaha River Bridge near Doctortown,Georgia; while the filming of the Greg Alman movie"Midnight Rider" that killed Ms. Sarah Jones. The Story linked seem to be a comentary with observatons as to what happened there, and of what happens when assumptions are made about responsibilities, and individuals want to assume no responsibility for the consequences of their actions ( or inactions.).
Here is the linked abc News article @
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/midnight-rider-hairstylist-describes-horrific-moments-train-hit/story?id=26523394
rdamon "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."
If train crews reported every group that was near the tracks they would son be cited for distracted train driving ? Many person through out the USA think that because their little piece of the RR does not see many trains that applies to all RRs. It is a function of any safety officers of any endeavor to study the locationt and anticipate problems. Many persons have no concept of any train any time and the practice of fleeting trains.
We have a siding and twice I''ve had to caution cars or persons that another train was coming not might be coming.
samfp1943So I thought it only deserved some sort of closure in the Forum.
Here is the clip from the locomotive event recorder that ABC used.
http://video.dailymail.co.uk/video/1418450360/2014/11/1418450360_3870272075001_train-footage.mp4
see if this heats it up...
I saw the 20/20 bit, what got me was how the (police?) video questioning kept showing the film-makers dancing around the subject of whether they had clear permission to be on the bridge, which we know they didn't.
Have fun with your trains
vsmith I saw the 20/20 bit, what got me was how the (police?) video questioning kept showing the film-makers dancing around the subject of whether they had clear permission to be on the bridge, which we know they didn't.
Two very glaring issues (in my mind) are:
A.) Why there were no officials from the railroad present? ( Thia would seem to reinforce the film crews lack of any official permissions to be on the property(?).
B.) The other obvious omission is the simple act of sending someone from the film crew; an appropriate distance from he bridge area (in either direction, with some means to warn the film crew of approaching trains.).
Either begs the question, had the railroad been notified, and permission given, for the film crew to be on their property; there would have been railroad personnel present with the means to 'protect' the railroad, and its own personnel during the time the film crew was on the scene.
once csx replied that permission was denied, they had no reason to assue that the filmmakers would break the law and trespass.
This article appeared in THE STATE newspaper Monday November 24, 2014.
Those parents seem like fine people and are using the settlement money for a fine purpose.
Director pleads guilty -
http://news.yahoo.com/director-allman-film-pleads-guilty-train-crash-death-154236411.html
"As part of the plea deal, Director Randall Miller will spend two years in the county jail and another eight on probation on involuntary manslaughter and criminal trespassing charges. He also will pay a $20,000 fine."
BaltACDDirector pleads guilty -
Here is the article in Variety:
http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/midnight-rider-trial-begins-a-year-after-fatal-train-crash-1201444695/
Now the train and engine crew should sue the film folks for emotional distress, say $5,000,000 worth each.
Mac
The forum gave me an error and said to try posting again. Evidentally, it made it through just the same. So ignore this duplicate post.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.