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?
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?
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
The only reason CSX is being sued is because it is the only pocket that has ANY money. All the guilty parties are broke.
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?
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
Sue the deep pockets and hope for a settlement.
I'm sorry for their loss, but this is definitely ambulance chasing.
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?
I know that. And I don't feel like second guessing the people charged with making the decisions about how long he stays in jail. On the other hand, I won't be disappointed if he serves the full term. As far as I know, it's not often that the executives are held accountable for their actions as this man has been, and I like the idea of firmly establishing the precedent.
Tom
In many jurisdictions, actual time in the can is about 1/3 of the sentence.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
It appears that Mr. Miller has a hard time understanding that two years is two years; 24 months; 104 weeks; 730 days. This is not particularly surprising when one considers the fact that this is the guy who didn't understand that "No" meant "No" when he asked for permission to film on CSX's mainline.
I think not. Mr. Miller can stay and enjoy the Georgia county jail ambiance. (He got off stupidly light as it was.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/midnight-rider-filmmakers-edited-footage-horrific-train-accident/story?id=29758781
Randall Miller, who has been serving is 2 year prison sentance since March, is requiresing early release.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2015-12-23/story/director-serving-2-years-death-camera-assistant-killed-train-wants-out?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JacksonvillecomNews+%28Jacksonville+Local+News+%E2%80%93+Jacksonville.com+and+The+Florida+Times-Union%29
According to Variety, a hearing was held today in which attorneys for the defendants in the Midnight Rider case appealed the $74,900 fine levied against them by OSHA for safety volations. Convicted director Randall Miller was present.
My opinion: Shut up and pay the fine. It's probably no more money than what your legal team is already costing you, and it will at least show for the first time that you admit to, and regret, making stupid mistakes.
If you look closely at the Google map, you will see a line across Doctortown Road, near the mainline, just north of the 3-way wye intersection. To the casual eye, that line could be an overhead wire or it could be a fence. The aerial photo was probably taken around noon, as shadows are hard to distinguish. I have not been to the site in several months, but if I remember correctly, that line is a fence with a gate across the road. If I am correct about that, then it would seem that the road is not a public road, but a private road with controlled access, presumably controlled by Rayonier. I note that the road continues east to some water impoundments that are identified as Rayonier's. I don't know about gates that might control access from the east end because I've never seen that far from the train.
To the east it appears that there are hundreds of acres of trees, presumably Rayonier property. Dirt roads wind through the area and it's hard to see, but I believe I spotted another gate at the intersection of Valentine Road and Rooks Road. I conclude that the entire Rayonier property is probably gated.
Wizlish gardendance I'm assuming this particular property didn't have any barrier between it and the railroad, but I've also seen places, for example along my commute on NT Transit's Riverline, where access from the plant property to the railroad, even with a siding, is through a locked gate in a fence. I'd be surprised if those fences are to restrict access to the railroad from the plant property, rather than the other way around.
gardendance I'm assuming this particular property didn't have any barrier between it and the railroad, but I've also seen places, for example along my commute on NT Transit's Riverline, where access from the plant property to the railroad, even with a siding, is through a locked gate in a fence.
I'd be surprised if those fences are to restrict access to the railroad from the plant property, rather than the other way around.
The NTSB recommendation:
"Recommendation As a result of this investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following safety recommendation:
To the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts; Location Managers Guild of America; The International Cinematographers Guild Camera Local 600; Producers Guild of America; Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio; Society of Motion Picture & Television Engineers; Directors Guild of America; Writers Guild of America; Teamsters Local 399; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 40; Studio Utility Employees, Local 724, and Operation Lifesaver:
Work with [the other recommendation recipients] to create and distribute educational materials that emphasize that (1) railroads are private property requiring the railroad’s authorization to enter and (2) that, if authorization is given, everyone on sccene must follow the railroad’s safety procedures to reduce hazards"
Note that NTSB addressed this to the film industry unions. I will speculate that the Board wants awareness.
Rgds IGN
BaltACD While I agree the punishment is much to lienient, however I doubt that 2 years in a rural Georgia county jail will be much of a country club experience.
While I agree the punishment is much to lienient, however I doubt that 2 years in a rural Georgia county jail will be much of a country club experience.
Although I have no direct knowledge of the Wayne County jail, I'm originally from the area. I'd be perfectly willing to bet my next paycheck on your statement being correct.
gardendanceI'm assuming this particular property didn't have any barrier between it and the railroad, but I've also seen places, for example along my commute on NT Transit's Riverline, where access from the plant property to the railroad, even with a siding, is through a locked gate in a fence.
I'm assuming this particular property didn't have any barrier between it and the railroad, but I've also seen places, for example along my commute on NT Transit's Riverline, where access from the plant property to the railroad, even with a siding, is through a locked gate in a fence.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Deggesty gardendance Of course I'm no lawyer, and I don't know what actions the adjacent property owner took that facilitated the film crew's tresspassing. Maybe all they did was tell the film crew ok you can film on our property, but don't you dare go onto the railroad because that's dangerous and NOT our property. Since many accounts have said CSX specifically refused someone permission to film on the railroad, non-lawyer me feels that the adjacent property owner didn't do anything wrong, and ordinary prudent person me feels that other ordinary prudent people would think the bridge itself is not part of Rayonier's property. As for admissability in court, does the statute say that testimony supporting the report is admissable? What if the report says "Rayonier official so and so said sure you can go on that bridge because 2 trains already went by", can the parties get Mr. So and so to testify in court about why his story today is different from the one he gave before? Patrick, I agree. It seems to me that whoever said, "Let's go on the bridge" was definitely imprudent.
gardendance Of course I'm no lawyer, and I don't know what actions the adjacent property owner took that facilitated the film crew's tresspassing. Maybe all they did was tell the film crew ok you can film on our property, but don't you dare go onto the railroad because that's dangerous and NOT our property. Since many accounts have said CSX specifically refused someone permission to film on the railroad, non-lawyer me feels that the adjacent property owner didn't do anything wrong, and ordinary prudent person me feels that other ordinary prudent people would think the bridge itself is not part of Rayonier's property. As for admissability in court, does the statute say that testimony supporting the report is admissable? What if the report says "Rayonier official so and so said sure you can go on that bridge because 2 trains already went by", can the parties get Mr. So and so to testify in court about why his story today is different from the one he gave before?
Of course I'm no lawyer, and I don't know what actions the adjacent property owner took that facilitated the film crew's tresspassing. Maybe all they did was tell the film crew ok you can film on our property, but don't you dare go onto the railroad because that's dangerous and NOT our property.
Since many accounts have said CSX specifically refused someone permission to film on the railroad, non-lawyer me feels that the adjacent property owner didn't do anything wrong, and ordinary prudent person me feels that other ordinary prudent people would think the bridge itself is not part of Rayonier's property.
As for admissability in court, does the statute say that testimony supporting the report is admissable? What if the report says "Rayonier official so and so said sure you can go on that bridge because 2 trains already went by", can the parties get Mr. So and so to testify in court about why his story today is different from the one he gave before?
Patrick, I agree. It seems to me that whoever said, "Let's go on the bridge" was definitely imprudent.
Personal observation of other Rayinoer properties (tree farms), access from highways and other surface streets is through locked gates protecting the logging roads through the property. Access through these gates would require someone from the owner to unlock the gate. I suspect this kind of access was in place at the accident location, but don't know it for a fact.
Johnny
petitnj And the NTSB statement " Contributing to the accident was the adjacent property owner’s actions to facilitate the film crew’s access to the bridge and the CSX right-of-way." opens the flood gates for adjacent property owners to be sued if some fool crosses their property and gets killled on the tracks.
And the NTSB statement " Contributing to the accident was the adjacent property owner’s actions to facilitate the film crew’s access to the bridge and the CSX right-of-way." opens the flood gates for adjacent property owners to be sued if some fool crosses their property and gets killled on the tracks.
By statute, NTSB reports are not admissible in court.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.