http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/trial-decide-railroad-shares-blame-movie-crew-death-48520404
Here we go again - Can CSX up the ante and disbar/ better yet throw the ambulance chasers in the clink plus pay CSX's expenses & legal fees on this nonsense?
Sue the deep pockets and hope for a settlement.
I'm sorry for their loss, but this is definitely ambulance chasing.
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...
I'm of the opinion that CSX should fight this every inch of the way. Yes, I'm aware that settling may cost less than litigating it to the end. It clearly appears the film production company was at fault because they were trespassing in spite of having been denied permission to film there and they are the ones the family should be going after. Offering a settlement will only serve to encourage others to try hitting the jackpot.
Norm
This interesting comment by CSX attorneys raises the same issues that we discussed in a recent thread about engineers deciding to not make an emergency application because it might derail the train:
"When Ryan realized that people were on the trestle, he did not apply the train's emergency brake because he thought the people were off the trestle or in the clear, the brakes would not slow the train down before it reached the trestle, and he was concerned about causing a derailment," CSX attorneys wrote in one court filing.
Why would an engineer be concerned about an emergency application causing a derailment if he knew there was no reason to make an emergency application?
The only reason CSX is being sued is because it is the only pocket that has ANY money. All the guilty parties are broke.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Norm48327 I'm of the opinion that CSX should fight this every inch of the way.
I'm of the opinion that CSX should fight this every inch of the way.
RobertSchuknecht Norm48327 I'm of the opinion that CSX should fight this every inch of the way. That decision will most likely be made by CSX's insurance carrier who is probably paying the costs of any civil suit.
That decision will most likely be made by CSX's insurance carrier who is probably paying the costs of any civil suit.
Class 1 railroads are nominally self insured for the 'small stuff'. They only seek insurance to cover catastrophic incidents like Lac Megantic (the carrier that was involved in the incident was not a Class 1). No matter the outcome of this suit it does not reach the level of a catasrophe.
Will not happen but it sure would be great if jury awarded CSX $100,000 for parents filing nuisance suit. Oh and also take it out of their lawyers hides as well.
blue streak 1 Will not happen but it sure would be great if jury awarded CSX $100,000 for parents filing nuisance suit. Oh and also take it out of their lawyers hides as well.
I can see the headline now:
GRIEVING PARENTS FORCED TO PAY MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY $100,000 AFTER DAUGHTER'S DEATH.
------
Railfans on the internet rejoice.
----
Yeah, doesn't exactly sound like a great PR move now, does it? No, I'm not saying the railroad or the crew should have to pay penny one, but swinging the pendulum to the other side is just as insane.
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
A simple "loser pays" award for the costs CSX incurs defending itself would help serve as a deterent. Heck, it would deter a good many nuisance suits.
More important, though, is sending the message that the defendent (CSX) was simply using its own property for the intended purpose and the the victim was, indeed, trespassing and thus there at her own risk.
I have little doubt that the plaintiffs are simply looking for a deep pocket to provide a payday. A small, independent film company does not fit that bill. CSX does.
I'm really sorry the victim lost her life through the negligence of others. She didn't deserve it.
tree68 A simple "loser pays" award for the costs CSX incurs defending itself would help serve as a deterent. Heck, it would deter a good many nuisance suits.
That is already standard court practice in Canada, in civil suits the loser pays the winner's court costs. And we do have fewer frivolous lawsuits up here.
tree68 More important, though, is sending the message that the defendent (CSX) was simply using its own property for the intended purpose and the the victim was, indeed, trespassing and thus there at her own risk. I have little doubt that the plaintiffs are simply looking for a deep pocket to provide a payday. A small, independent film company does not fit that bill. CSX does. I'm really sorry the victim lost her life through the negligence of others. She didn't deserve it.
I completely agree.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
EuclidWhy would an engineer be concerned about an emergency application causing a derailment if he knew there was no reason to make an emergency application?
CYA. You would put train in emergency even if you know you can't stop in time if nothing worse can happen doing it. If engineer thought slack action could cause derailment, then he wouldn't do it. Imagine if train derailed and took down the bridge span with everyone clinging to it?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd Euclid Why would an engineer be concerned about an emergency application causing a derailment if he knew there was no reason to make an emergency application? CYA. You would put train in emergency even if you know you can't stop in time if nothing worse can happen doing it. If engineer thought slack action could cause derailment, then he wouldn't do it. Imagine if train derailed and took down the bridge span with everyone clinging to it?
Euclid Why would an engineer be concerned about an emergency application causing a derailment if he knew there was no reason to make an emergency application?
Well something worse than the emergency application can always happen if you go into emergency. It can always derail the train. But my larger concern with the quote from CSX attorneys is this point they make:
They say the engineer did not see that people were fouling the track so he did not set any braking. That is fair enough. There is no reason to make any brake application if someone is merely near the track. But then the attorneys add two more reasons why the engineer did not apply braking:
1) The train was too close to stop in time.
2) There was a risk that an emergency application might derail the train.
Either the engineer saw people on the track or he did not. There is no need to add more reasons to not apply brakes if there is already the perfect reason that nobody was on the track. Adding those second two reasons makes it sound like the engineer did see people on the track, so he needs more justification for not applying brakes. I am amazed that CSX attorneys made that public statement.
While there may not have been people actually fouling the track at some time during the train's approach, there were perhaps a dozen people milling around on the confined bridge deck; and there was a hospital bed sitting crosswise on the track. What would you have done if confronted with that situation?
Euclid oltmannd Euclid Why would an engineer be concerned about an emergency application causing a derailment if he knew there was no reason to make an emergency application? CYA. You would put train in emergency even if you know you can't stop in time if nothing worse can happen doing it. If engineer thought slack action could cause derailment, then he wouldn't do it. Imagine if train derailed and took down the bridge span with everyone clinging to it? Well something worse than the emergency application can always happen if you go into emergency. It can always derail the train. But my larger concern with the quote from CSX attorneys is this point they make: They say the engineer did not see that people were fouling the track so he did not set any braking. That is fair enough. There is no reason to make any brake application if someone is merely near the track. But then the attorneys add two more reasons why the engineer did not apply braking: 1) The train was too close to stop in time. 2) There was a risk that an emergency application might derail the train. Either the engineer saw people on the track or he did not. There is no need to add more reasons to not apply brakes if there is already the perfect reason that nobody was on the track. Adding those second two reasons makes it sound like the engineer did see people on the track, so he needs more justification for not applying brakes. I am amazed that CSX attorneys made that public statement. While there may not have been people actually fouling the track at some time during the train's approach, there were perhaps a dozen people milling around on the confined bridge deck; and there was a hospital bed sitting crosswise on the track. What would you have done if confronted with that situation?
Do you slam on the brakes of a 18 wheeler when you see a squirrel crossing in front of you? A hospital bed is just so much minor debris that crews see virtually every trip.
BaltACDDo you slam on the brakes of a 18 wheeler when you see a squirrel crossing in front of you? A hospital bed is just so much minor debris that crews see virtually every trip.
This guy did.
http://www.wwnytv.com/story/35825288/2-cars-hit-jackknifed-milk-tanker-on-new-york-highway-4-die
Total losses - three employees of a small company and a doctor.
It was never reported whether it was a carcass lying in the roadway or the deer was running across the Interstate...
tree68 BaltACD This guy did. http://www.wwnytv.com/story/35825288/2-cars-hit-jackknifed-milk-tanker-on-new-york-highway-4-die Total losses - three employees of a small company and a doctor. It was never reported whether it was a carcass lying in the roadway or the deer was running across the Interstate...
BaltACD
Which leads to the question - How experienced (or not) was the milk truck driver? It isn't answered in the linked article.
Sure you can always find cases where someone swerves to miss some object and causes a crash that is much worse than if they had hit the object. The significance of the hospital bed is that it is a large object. That much would have been obvious even if the engineer never recognized it as a bed. A large object straddling the track on a big bridge would be a major concern for any responsible engineer. Now surround that large object with a dozen or more people, and you have something that is clearly not just a case of some random debris landing in your path.
I get a kick out of the CSX attorneys because they are trying to justify not dumping the air. Apparently they did not feel that the stated reason of nobody fouling the track was convincing enough. So they came up with two more reasons. Yet they fail to realize that two added reasons actually undermine their first reason.
How does an engineer see a bed on the track, a dozen people milling around it on a narrow trestle deck with no easy escape, and conclude that nobody is in harm’s way?
zugmann blue streak 1 Will not happen but it sure would be great if jury awarded CSX $100,000 for parents filing nuisance suit. Oh and also take it out of their lawyers hides as well. I can see the headline now: GRIEVING PARENTS FORCED TO PAY MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY $100,000 AFTER DAUGHTER'S DEATH. ------ Railfans on the internet rejoice. ---- Yeah, doesn't exactly sound like a great PR move now, does it? No, I'm not saying the railroad or the crew should have to pay penny one, but swinging the pendulum to the other side is just as insane.
Yeah. I can imagine the lead story:"Heartless CSX collects another pound of flesh ($100K) from the grieving parents of daughter killed by train." Brilliant PR!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
BaltACDWhich leads to the question - How experienced (or not) was the milk truck driver? It isn't answered in the linked article.
And I've heard nothing further on that angle.
It's been a tough weekend here - Three employees of an ambulance company in the first incident, and a state trooper shot and killed last night...
tree68 BaltACD And I've heard nothing further on that angle. It's been a tough weekend here - Three employees of an ambulance company in the first incident, and a state trooper shot and killed last night...
One of those killed in the milk truck incident was from a neighboring community to me.
Euclid How does an engineer see a bed on the track, a dozen people milling around it on a narrow trestle deck with no easy escape, and conclude that nobody is in harm’s way?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
BaltACDOne of those killed in the milk truck incident was from a neighboring community to me.
Small world department...
Murphy Siding Euclid How does an engineer see a bed on the track, a dozen people milling around it on a narrow trestle deck with no easy escape, and conclude that nobody is in harm’s way? How would you know that was the setup? You weren't there.
How would you know that was the setup? You weren't there.
It is all right there on the video that is publically available. It clearly shows the hospital bed set crosswise and centered on the track. It shows the trestle deck including walkways along the track. I shows people moving around in various ways on the trestle deck, handling equipment and other activities. It shows the panic that set in when they realized a train was coming. The only thing I am not sure of is the exact number of people. So I am estimating a dozen people.
This ABC video contains the most coverage of the actual incident:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/video-shows-train-involved-death-midnight-rider-crewmember-29804691
Euclid Sure you can always find cases where someone swerves to miss some object and causes a crash that is much worse than if they had hit the object. The significance of the hospital bed is that it is a large object. That much would have been obvious even if the engineer never recognized it as a bed. A large object straddling the track on a big bridge would be a major concern for any responsible engineer. Now surround that large object with a dozen or more people, and you have something that is clearly not just a case of some random debris landing in your path. I get a kick out of the CSX attorneys because they are trying to justify not dumping the air. Apparently they did not feel that the stated reason of nobody fouling the track was convincing enough. So they came up with two more reasons. Yet they fail to realize that two added reasons actually undermine their first reason. How does an engineer see a bed on the track, a dozen people milling around it on a narrow trestle deck with no easy escape, and conclude that nobody is in harm’s way?
Given the limited time for the Engineer to react and the initial speed of the train, there is nothing he could have done. Even if he had put the train in emergency right away, hitting people or a large object at say 40 MPH is just a deadly as hitting them at 56 MPH. This should be obvious. And it would appear that he did take action to stop the train after the seriousness of the impact became clear.
And a sidenote: If crews were to put their trains into emergency immediately every time we see people on or near the track, have a near miss at a crossing or see debris (ex: trees) in front of us the rail system would grind to a standstill. That's how frequent trespassing is. Perhaps we should focus on making the hazards of the tracks crystal clear, as opposed to second-guessing, blaming and suing rail companies and people who have done nothing wrong.
From what I understand, with existing technology, slack action, variable braking on various cars, etc., dumping the air on a curve on a trestle has every possibility of derailment. To put the train into emergency under the specific condiions could possibly have been suicidal! That is the first argument the railroad's lawyers should use. The second is that it would not have saved the lives of anyone on the trestle. The train would not stop on a dime.
Euclid http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/video-shows-train-involved-death-midnight-rider-crewmember-29804691
blue streak 1Bascule ? Anyone know when it was deactivated as a draw ?
The bridge is a Strauss Heel Trunion bascule bridge. Differences to other types are shown here: www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/d6e3.pdf
In 33CFR117 of 2003 the Altahama River is still listed as navigable water.Quote:
Sec. 117.351 Altamaha River. (a) The draws of all bridges, except the Seaboard System Railroad bridge, mile 59.4 at Doctortown, shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given. (b) The draw of the Seaboard System Railroad bridge, mile 59.4 at Doctortown, shall open on signal if at least seven days notice is given.
End of Quote
(b) refers to the bridge in question. All others are abandoned according to a web search.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR In 33CFR117 of 2003 the Altahama River is still listed as navigable water.Quote: Sec. 117.351 Altamaha River. (a) The draws of all bridges, except the Seaboard System Railroad bridge, mile 59.4 at Doctortown, shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given. (b) The draw of the Seaboard System Railroad bridge, mile 59.4 at Doctortown, shall open on signal if at least seven days notice is given. End of Quote (b) refers to the bridge in question. All others are abandoned according to a web search.Regards, Volker
The above quoted 'navigable water' directive is only about 15 years behind the times as the 'Seaboard System Railroad' ceased to exist when CSX Transportation was formed 1987 to consumate the real meger of Chessie System and Seaboard that was effective at the top corporate levels on Nov. 1, 1980.
EuclidWhat would you have if confronted with that situation?
Pretty much what the engineer did. Blow the horn, stop train after it hit the bed and the bed hit the people still on the bridge walkway. This really isn't that complicated.
oltmannd Euclid What would you have if confronted with that situation? Pretty much what the engineer did. Blow the horn, stop train after it hit the bed and the bed hit the people still on the bridge walkway. This really isn't that complicated.
Euclid What would you have if confronted with that situation?
Yes whatever the response, it was not complicated at all.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.