http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/midnight-rider-director-randall-miller-716543
"Midnight Rider' Director Randall Miller, Producers Charged With Involuntary Manslaughter, Criminal Trespass"
An "expensive model collector"
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/midnight-rider-director-randall-miller-716543?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=hollywoodreporter_breakingnews&utm_campaign=THR%20Breaking%20News_now_2014-07-03%2007%3A35%3A16_HLewis
Thanks guys. It’s nice to have you all back together again.
Murphy Siding BaltACD A bit off track, but somehow weirdly related.... One of my building contractor customers was having a problem with a factory Rep. I had sent out to look at a product defect. The contractor said the guy was getting *bucky* with him. I asked him what he meant by *bucky*. He said the Rep. was one of those guys who is never wrong, and just keeps arguing and arguing.
BaltACD
Norm
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Euclidor purposely evasive
It's a complaint being written to cast the widest possible net in hopes that somebody will catch some blame, and maybe cough up some cash. Those three words sum it up perfectly.
Until testimony starts, there's not much more we can do but speculate as to facts, suppositions, opinions, or untruths.
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...
The complaint says the CSX had “actual knowledge” about trespassing under way. I do not know the basis of the “actual knowledge.” Generally, from the three paragraphs, one might assume that the “actual knowledge” came from direct observance by the train crews.
I am not assuming that the complaint has any merit or even that it states the truth. In fact, I think the three paragraphs are strangely worded, and imply points left unaddressed. It is either sloppy writing or purposely evasive.
In any case, I find nothing in the complaint that criticizes CSX about anything to do with them denying permission. And nothing in the complaint says that Rayonier granted permission for the film crew to enter CSX property. Nowhere does it say that the film company had permission. So the whole issue of permission rests solely with the film crew entering CXS property without permission.
The only reference that ever questioned whether the film company had permission was that news report a few weeks ago that said criminal charges are being delayed because there was a question of whether the film company had permission. Nothing in this civil complaint mentions that.
CSX property at the accident location was not accessible to the public with or without permission, as it was surrounded by Rayonier property. CSX would not be required to know who Rayonier had granted access to their property.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Euclid,
Considering you are unwilling to accept other viewpoints I am done discussing the matter with you.
Yes, but...
Norm48327Euclid Paragraph 76. Moreover, despite its actual knowledge that the Midnight Rider cast and crew were on and around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge on February 20, CSX never sent a representative to the location to secure the removal of individuals and equipment from the railroad tracks. I see nothing that says that CSX should have anticipated that the film crew would trespass after being denied permission, or that CSX should have sent someone to make sure the film crew did not trespass. So why you are making an analogy in effort to illustrate something that is not in the complaint? Because by constantly citing paragraph 76 you are insinuating that CSX had a responsibility to send someone to the area to be certain the film crew complied with the denial. CSX had no such responsibility. The denial should have been sufficient.
Euclid Paragraph 76. Moreover, despite its actual knowledge that the Midnight Rider cast and crew were on and around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge on February 20, CSX never sent a representative to the location to secure the removal of individuals and equipment from the railroad tracks. I see nothing that says that CSX should have anticipated that the film crew would trespass after being denied permission, or that CSX should have sent someone to make sure the film crew did not trespass. So why you are making an analogy in effort to illustrate something that is not in the complaint?
Paragraph 76.
Moreover, despite its actual knowledge that the Midnight Rider cast and crew were on and around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge on February 20, CSX never sent a representative to the location to secure the removal of individuals and equipment from the railroad tracks.
I see nothing that says that CSX should have anticipated that the film crew would trespass after being denied permission, or that CSX should have sent someone to make sure the film crew did not trespass.
So why you are making an analogy in effort to illustrate something that is not in the complaint?
Norm,
You say the denial of permission should have been sufficient. And the analogies given by Dave, Ed, and you all focus on that point. And the focus on that point assumes that somebody here or the complaint itself has said something contrary to that point. That is not the case, so the point is a STRAW MAN.
Your analogies show how nonsensical it would be to assume that CSX knew the film crew would trespass due to the fact that CSX had denied them permission to enter the property.
Sure it is nonsensical, but nobody has ever said that. You say that I am insinuating it based on paragraph 76. Yet my point in posting the paragraph was to show that it has no connection to the idea of assumptions based on denial of permission.
Look at paragraph 76. It has nothing to do with sending someone to prevent trespassing. Trespassing was already underway, so the opportunity to prevent it had passed. Paragraph 76 says that CSX had “actual knowledge” that the film crew was on CSX property, and CSX should have removed them from their property.
It does not say where the actual knowledge came from, but there is no indication that the actual knowledge is assumed to have existed simply based on the theory that whenever someone asks for permission and is denied, they trespass anyway.
Euclid Norm48327 Bucky, If someone asks to use your car and you tell them no, are you supposed to call the cops to make sure he doesn't take it? The analogy is pretty simple. CSX had NO obligation to send someone to make sure they didn't trespass. Don't try to twist meanings. Norm, Here are the three paragraphs that pertain to this discussion as quoted from the complaint which can be seen here: http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Jones-filed-complaint_Redacted__140521234456.pdf Paragraph 74. Defendant CSX had actual knowledge that the Midnight Rider cast and crew would be around the tracks and trestle bridge on or around February 20, 2014. Paragraph 75. Despite the fact that multiple CSX trains passed the Midnight Rider cast and crew on February 20, with those individuals in view of the trains’ operators, no warning was given to the subsequent train that ultimately caused Sarah’s death. Paragraph 76. Moreover, despite its actual knowledge that the Midnight Rider cast and crew were on and around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge on February 20, CSX never sent a representative to the location to secure the removal of individuals and equipment from the railroad tracks. I see nothing that says that CSX should have anticipated that the film crew would trespass after being denied permission, or that CSX should have sent someone to make sure the film crew did not trespass. So why you are making an analogy in effort to illustrate something that is not in the complaint?
Norm48327 Bucky, If someone asks to use your car and you tell them no, are you supposed to call the cops to make sure he doesn't take it? The analogy is pretty simple. CSX had NO obligation to send someone to make sure they didn't trespass. Don't try to twist meanings.
Bucky,
If someone asks to use your car and you tell them no, are you supposed to call the cops to make sure he doesn't take it? The analogy is pretty simple. CSX had NO obligation to send someone to make sure they didn't trespass. Don't try to twist meanings.
Here are the three paragraphs that pertain to this discussion as quoted from the complaint which can be seen here: http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Jones-filed-complaint_Redacted__140521234456.pdf
Paragraph 74.
Defendant CSX had actual knowledge that the Midnight Rider cast and crew would be around the tracks and trestle bridge on or around February 20, 2014.
Paragraph 75.
Despite the fact that multiple CSX trains passed the Midnight Rider cast and crew on February 20, with those individuals in view of the trains’ operators, no warning was given to the subsequent train that ultimately caused Sarah’s death.
Because by constantly citing paragraph 76 you are insinuating that CSX had a responsibility to send someone to the area to be certain the film crew complied with the denial. CSX had no such responsibility. The denial should have been sufficient.
I am in favor of letting the court(s) decide the matter. Eleven pages of discussion already?
Johnny
I wouldn't normally respond to trollac, but what part of Paragraph 76 appears to be so mystifying?
It's clear to me that lawyers are trying to find grounds for joint and several inclusion of the CSX deep pockets -- here, by trying to establish some kind of contributory negligence because the crews of the trains did not report the filming activity and call down the railroad police on it stat.
If it has some other meaning, go ahead and tell me. But DON'T keep telling me this has anything to do with expectations about continued trespassing. It is becoming, even for a Bucyrus-style thread, tedious.
edblysardOn and around sounds pretty specific to me, the on part especially.
Paragraph 76 is specific. Nobody has said it is not specific. I have no idea why Dave posted it. What is the point of citing 76 now?
The point I was questioning was your point about the absurdity of the assertion that CSX should have expected the film crew to trespass after being denied permission to enter the property; and therefore should have known the film was on their property illegally; and therefore should have done something to protect them from trains.
Nobody has made that assertion. Paragraph 76 does not make it. And yet in your post on page 10, you said this:
"Why in the world are people somehow imagining that CSX had to somehow guard against the people who asked going ahead and doing what they wanted to anyway after being refused permission?"
On and around sounds pretty specific to me, the on part especially.
23 17 46 11
Dave,
I have read paragraph 76 and understand what it says. What is your point in posting it at this time?
Para 76 of the complaint:
Moreover, despite actual knowledge that the Midnight Rider cast and crew were on and around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge on February 20, CSX never sent a representative to the location to secure the removal of individuals and equipment from the railroad tracks.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
edblysard I am kinda amazed here….what part of “No” got lost in translation? It’s a simple word, two letters, and one syllable. “No, you can’t film on our property or our bridge”. How hard is that? Why in the world are people somehow imagining that CSX had to somehow guard against the people who asked going ahead and doing what they wanted to anyway after being refused permission? Why in the world would CSX assume they were going to go ahead and film on their (CSX’s) property anyway? It’s like a burglar asking you if it’s okay to break into you house sometime this week and steal your computer and TV. You tell him no, and guess what, while you’re at work the next day, he breaks in anyway. While he is walking down the hall with your flat screen under one arm and your laptop in the other, he trips on one your kid’s toys, falls and breaks his arm. So he sues you for his broken arm. His cause of action is that you failed to post a guard to keep him from breaking into and burglarizing your home and because you failed to pick up after your kid. After all, he warned you he wanted to burglarize the place, so somehow it has become your responsibility to keep him from breaking the law and keep him safe from harm if/while he does so. CSX had every reason to expect the film crew to NOT be on their property, because they had told them no. Absolutely no reason to expect anything else, none. It’s a real simple word….
I am kinda amazed here….what part of “No” got lost in translation?
It’s a simple word, two letters, and one syllable.
“No, you can’t film on our property or our bridge”.
How hard is that?
Why in the world are people somehow imagining that CSX had to somehow guard against the people who asked going ahead and doing what they wanted to anyway after being refused permission?
Why in the world would CSX assume they were going to go ahead and film on their (CSX’s) property anyway?
It’s like a burglar asking you if it’s okay to break into you house sometime this week and steal your computer and TV.
You tell him no, and guess what, while you’re at work the next day, he breaks in anyway.
While he is walking down the hall with your flat screen under one arm and your laptop in the other, he trips on one your kid’s toys, falls and breaks his arm.
So he sues you for his broken arm.
His cause of action is that you failed to post a guard to keep him from breaking into and burglarizing your home and because you failed to pick up after your kid.
After all, he warned you he wanted to burglarize the place, so somehow it has become your responsibility to keep him from breaking the law and keep him safe from harm if/while he does so.
CSX had every reason to expect the film crew to NOT be on their property, because they had told them no.
Absolutely no reason to expect anything else, none.
It’s a real simple word….
Ed,
I completely agree that it would be absurd to say that CSX should have expected the film crew to trespass after being denied permission to enter the property; and therefore should have known the film was on their property illegally; and therefore should have done something to protect them from trains.
Just for the record, nowhere in this thread has that been claimed or suggested by anybody, and I am not aware of anyone anywhere imagining that, as you say. I also do not find it in the complaint filing.
Paul of Covington Ed, once again you are letting reason stand in the way of speculation and conjecture based on rumor and hearsay.
Ed, once again you are letting reason stand in the way of speculation and conjecture based on rumor and hearsay.
Thanks for the laugh Paul.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
I just want to make it clear that this is not a put down or anything meant to be snarky. I am asking a sincere and honest question that I posed to Ed above in the second post of this page. In reviewing the previous discussion, I find that the answer is in post #3, page 10 by Dave Husman. The first sentence of Dave’s post is this:
“If the film company requests permission to be on the CSX property and is denied, how does that make the CSX "aware' of the location of the film crew?”
The short answer is that it doesn’t make CSX aware of the location of the film crew. Dave is asking me that question as though I had said it made CSX aware. I never said that.
Dave is asking the question in response to post #1, page 10 in which I said this:
“It has been reported that CSX was aware that the film company would be working in the area.”
I went on to say that this was stated by news reports, which came out in the time after the film crew asked for permission and was denied. And due to that timing, I concluded that “working in the area” did not include the area owned by CSX. My point was to decipher what was meant by “working in the area.”
From that statement by me, Dave apparently concluded that I was saying that when CSX denied permission, they should have known that the film company would trespass despite being denied permission. And therefore because CSX should have known that, they did know that; and that knowledge would be the “awareness” by CSX that the film crew would be in the area.
I never said that or suggested it. It was a misinterpretation by Dave. In the last post on page 10, Ed based his comments on the premise of that misinterpretation when he asked this:
“Why in the world are people somehow imagining that CSX had to somehow guard against the people who asked going ahead and doing what they wanted to anyway after being refused permission?”
So I asked him where he got that information. Now I have the answer to that question, as I have explained here.
"Maybe somebody could clarify why it has been implied that CSX should have anticipated trespass after denying permission. "
The answer to that may be found in your own posts.
edblysardWhy in the world are people somehow imagining that CSX had to somehow guard against the people who asked going ahead and doing what they wanted to anyway after being refused permission?
Who is imagining that? I am curious about the part that I quoted above from your previous post. I believe you are referring to what has been suggested here in claiming that CSX should have known the film crew would trespass after denying them permission.
I seem to recall that the point was made by someone here, but without going back to check, I cannot be sure who it was. I believe it may have been Dave Husman who referred to it apparently as his interpretation of the complaint language against CSX.
The premise would be that CSX is guilty because they did nothing about protecting trespassers that they should have anticipated. However, I see nothing in the complaint that makes such a point, so I am confused as to its basis. Maybe somebody could clarify why it has been implied that CSX should have anticipated trespass after denying permission.
Amen, brother.
ACY,
I don’t believe the engineer of the train could have seen the film crew until he rounded that last curve. Once around the curve, he would have been lined up with the bridge with a clear view into the through truss. But the engineer was still over a half-mile away from the bridge, so he might not have seen the film crew even with an unobstructed view until he got maybe 1000-1500 feet away. It might have taken some time to realize that it was not just a few people on the bridge that would get out of the way as usual.
But at the point the train rounded the curve, its headlight would have been easily seen by the film crew. If it were just a matter of dropping everything and running for their lives, they would have had plenty of time to get off the bridge and into the clear. The problem was that they had established a commitment to their position by placing valuable equipment, and placing a bed on the track. They needed time to think about these items and what to do with them. Not having expected a train, they probably had no plan for quickly removing their possessions.
They were also a group of people working within a chain of command structure in which people give orders and other people take orders. People giving orders were probably unsure of what to order, and people taking orders were probably unsure of whether to act on their own or to wait for orders.
Trains appear to be moving very slowly in the distance because their large size makes them seem closer than they actually are. I suspect that 15 seconds might have been lost by the film crew being in complete paralysis of indecision upon first seeing the headlight down the track. I conclude that there was probably about 15-20 seconds for defensive action once it was underway.
Looking at the satellite map for Doctortown, Georgia, I see the CSX bascule bridge and trestle a mile or so northeast of Jessup. I can see how a train could have snuck up on the film crew. There does not appear to be any grade crossings between the bridge and Jessup, so there would be no horn to hear from blowing for crossings. About .67 miles southwest of the bridge, the track makes a very slight curve. It isn’t much curvature, but would be just enough to cut off vision down the track from the bridge at that curve.
So I calculate that there would have been about 43 seconds from the time the train became visible from the trestle to the time it arrived at the trestle if the speed did not slacken on the way.
Norm48327 tree68 Dave H - Bucky isn't going to be happy until someone agrees with him that the accident was the fault of CSX... Gotta agree with that. Same thing happening here as was in the Lac Megantic thread right down to disecting the meaning of the word "is".
tree68 Dave H - Bucky isn't going to be happy until someone agrees with him that the accident was the fault of CSX...
Dave H - Bucky isn't going to be happy until someone agrees with him that the accident was the fault of CSX...
Gotta agree with that. Same thing happening here as was in the Lac Megantic thread right down to disecting the meaning of the word "is".
Paragraph 77 of the complaint reads as follows:
77.
Additionally, the train that caused Sarah’s death on February 20 did not take reasonable precautions to avoid the Midnight Rider cast and crew, such as blowing the horn and/or slowing the train’s speed.
In the case of this paragraph, aside from what the words say, I speculate that the statement is false. I expect that the engineer blew the horn as an emergency warning and set the brakes before he reached the bridge. He saw several people and objects on the bridge that probably fouled the track. He also saw a large object (hospital bed) positioned on the track, clearly fouling it. Besides the prospect of hitting several people, he had to consider the possibility of derailing at speed on the trestle, depending on what the large object was.
Therefore, I have to assume that the engineer had the brakes in emergency a considerable distance before reaching the scene, even though the train did not stop in time to avoid the collision.
oltmannd Norm48327 tree68 Dave H - Bucky isn't going to be happy until someone agrees with him that the accident was the fault of CSX... Gotta agree with that. Same thing happening here as was in the Lac Megantic thread right down to disecting the meaning of the word "is". Yep. That's where we're at....
Yep. That's where we're at....
Sure glad he's not a constitutional lawyer.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
dehusman Euclid It has been reported that CSX was aware that the film company would be working in the area. This awareness extended to the time after the point where CSX denied permission, so I conclude the reference to the film company working in the area did not mean that they would be working on CSX property. In fact with the same news report of CSX being aware that the film company would be working in the area, it was also reported that the film company did not have permission from CSX to be on their property. Therefore I conclude that paragraph 74 which you cite refers to this awareness that the film company would be working in the area. If the film company requests permission to be on the CSX property and is denied, how does that make the CSX "aware' of the location of the film crew? All the CSX knows at that point is where the film crew will NOT be, that is on their tracks, trestle or property. Did the film crew still want to film on the lumber company property? CSX doesn't know. Did the film crew decide to go to a different bridge? The CSX doesn't know. Did they decide to film on a different date? The CSX doesn't know. Did they decide to even continue with the filming? The CSX doesn't know. All the CSX knows is the film crew wanted to use the CSX property and the CSX said no. In all of these "reports" of being "aware" I haven't seen one where anybody from the film crew talked to anyone from the CSX (other than the request to be on the property which was denied). How was the CSX made aware that the crew would be near the bridge? The person the film crew talked to at the lumber company is named in the complaint. If they talked to somebody at CSX, why aren't they named in the complaint? The answer of course is that other than the request that was denied, the was no contact between the CSX and the film crew. Until somebody comes up with some other positive contact, besides the request which was denied, I don't see how the CSX could be "aware" the film crew was out there. How was the CSX made aware? Who communicated with whom?
Euclid It has been reported that CSX was aware that the film company would be working in the area. This awareness extended to the time after the point where CSX denied permission, so I conclude the reference to the film company working in the area did not mean that they would be working on CSX property. In fact with the same news report of CSX being aware that the film company would be working in the area, it was also reported that the film company did not have permission from CSX to be on their property. Therefore I conclude that paragraph 74 which you cite refers to this awareness that the film company would be working in the area.
It has been reported that CSX was aware that the film company would be working in the area. This awareness extended to the time after the point where CSX denied permission, so I conclude the reference to the film company working in the area did not mean that they would be working on CSX property. In fact with the same news report of CSX being aware that the film company would be working in the area, it was also reported that the film company did not have permission from CSX to be on their property. Therefore I conclude that paragraph 74 which you cite refers to this awareness that the film company would be working in the area.
If the film company requests permission to be on the CSX property and is denied, how does that make the CSX "aware' of the location of the film crew? All the CSX knows at that point is where the film crew will NOT be, that is on their tracks, trestle or property. Did the film crew still want to film on the lumber company property? CSX doesn't know. Did the film crew decide to go to a different bridge? The CSX doesn't know. Did they decide to film on a different date? The CSX doesn't know. Did they decide to even continue with the filming? The CSX doesn't know. All the CSX knows is the film crew wanted to use the CSX property and the CSX said no.
In all of these "reports" of being "aware" I haven't seen one where anybody from the film crew talked to anyone from the CSX (other than the request to be on the property which was denied). How was the CSX made aware that the crew would be near the bridge?
The person the film crew talked to at the lumber company is named in the complaint. If they talked to somebody at CSX, why aren't they named in the complaint? The answer of course is that other than the request that was denied, the was no contact between the CSX and the film crew.
Until somebody comes up with some other positive contact, besides the request which was denied, I don't see how the CSX could be "aware" the film crew was out there.
How was the CSX made aware? Who communicated with whom?
I have not concluded or stated that the CSX knew the film company would be on CSX property due to the fact that the film company had asked permission, and CSX had denied them permission. I agree with your conclusion about that.
All I am doing is interpreting the language of the complaint. The complaint mentions the “awareness” in paragraph 74. They call it “actual knowledge.” I have no idea where that actual knowledge came from. Of course you are correct that it could not have come from the fact that CSX denied permission. I never said that it did.
I am not jumping to any conclusions from the language of the complaint, including the assumption of whether the language is true or false. I am just interpreting what the words say.
However it appears that you are jumping to conclusions. For instance, you say this:
“The person the film crew talked to at the lumber company is named in the complaint. If they talked to somebody at CSX, why aren't they named in the complaint? The answer of course is that other than the request that was denied, there was no contact between the CSX and the film crew.”
From this, you conclude that CSX could not have known that the film company would be working “in the area” which could have been “around the tracks and trestle,” but not on CSX property. You conclude that this could not have been communicated to CSX simply because there is no contact person from CSX named in the complaint.
Besides the fact than we do not know what was communicated between CSX and the film company, it is quite possible that the knowledge that the film company would be working in the area was communicated to CSX by Rayonier.
In any case, paragraph 74 says CSX had “actual knowledge.” It may be true or it may be false, but those are the words.
dehusman Para 74 is the first place the complaint mentions "...actual knowledge...". "Defendant CSX had actual knowledge that the Midnight Rider cast and crew would be around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge on or around February 20, 2014." Period. Nothing about any trains. It says CSX knew they WOULD BE, future tense, there. And it never says CSX knew they be "on" CSX property. They would be "around". "Around" is not necessarily "on". How far away is "around"? If you are 50 ft from the tracks are you still around the tracks? If you are 75 ft from the tracks are you still around the tracks? If its a 100 ft ROW and you are 75 ft from the tracks, you aren't on CSX property. Para 75 discusses the other trains. "Despite the fact that multiple CSX trains passed the Midnight Rider cast and crew on February 20, with those individuals in view of the train's operators, no warning was given to the subsequent train...." Nothing about the cast and crew being "on" the right of way or by the tracks or trestle or even "around" the tracks or trestle, merely that they were "in view" of the train. How far away is "in view"? This is a complaint, it doesn't have to be factual, it just has to make allegations. I have been in enough RR depositions to know that the plaintiffs lawyers will throw as much mud up against the wall as they can in the hopes that something, anything, will stick. There are risks to the CSX, but knowledge that the film crew would be there is probably not one of the biggest ones.
Para 74 is the first place the complaint mentions "...actual knowledge...".
"Defendant CSX had actual knowledge that the Midnight Rider cast and crew would be around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge on or around February 20, 2014."
Period. Nothing about any trains. It says CSX knew they WOULD BE, future tense, there. And it never says CSX knew they be "on" CSX property. They would be "around". "Around" is not necessarily "on". How far away is "around"? If you are 50 ft from the tracks are you still around the tracks? If you are 75 ft from the tracks are you still around the tracks? If its a 100 ft ROW and you are 75 ft from the tracks, you aren't on CSX property.
Para 75 discusses the other trains.
"Despite the fact that multiple CSX trains passed the Midnight Rider cast and crew on February 20, with those individuals in view of the train's operators, no warning was given to the subsequent train...."
Nothing about the cast and crew being "on" the right of way or by the tracks or trestle or even "around" the tracks or trestle, merely that they were "in view" of the train. How far away is "in view"?
This is a complaint, it doesn't have to be factual, it just has to make allegations. I have been in enough RR depositions to know that the plaintiffs lawyers will throw as much mud up against the wall as they can in the hopes that something, anything, will stick.
There are risks to the CSX, but knowledge that the film crew would be there is probably not one of the biggest ones.
The language of paragraph 74 does also perfectly correlate with the report that CSX was aware that the film company would be working in the area. As you cite, it says: "Defendant CSX had actual knowledge that the Midnight Rider cast and crew would be around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge on or around February 20, 2014." “Around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge” does not mean on them. But it could easily mean “in the area.”
So yes, I agree that the knowledge cited in paragraph 74 did not come from the two train crews passing the site. And I agree with all your reasoning about paragraph 74. But this is not the paragraph citing the awareness of CSX that the film crew was on their property. The paragraph that does that is 76. Clearly 76 says the film crew was on CSX property because it says CSX should have sent somebody to remove the film crew and their equipment from the railroad tracks.
Paragraph 75 refers to the two trains passing and says the film crew was in sight of the train crews. Although it does not clarify whether or not the film crew was on CSX property at the time.
But paragraph 76 says the film crew was on CSX property, and CSX was aware of it. I assume that this awareness had to come from the sighting by the two train crews passing the area. It could be related to the information in paragraph 75 if the film crew was on CSX property when they were in able to have been seen by the train crews.
It cannot be related to the information of paragraph 74 due exactly to the reasons you cite.
It seems to me that there were two levels of awareness of CSX relating to the film crew; one level in paragraph 74, and the other in paragraph 76, or in 75 and 76 together.
The level in 74 apparently came from notification of CSX by perhaps Rayonier days prior to the accident. The level of 76 apparently came from notification of CSX by their train crews passing the site and seeing the film crew on CSX property on the day of the accident.
yes, but......
dehusman Euclid Well anything is possible. The film crew may have been over at the nearest McDonalds when the two trains passed. But the complaint says they were on CSX property near the tracks and trestle. Not exactly. What the complaint says with regard to the other trains is that the film crew was "...in view of the trains' operators..." In view could be on the tracks or it could be a half mile away. The phrasing about being "...on or around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge..." are used several times in the other paragraphs about the CSXT's liability and they all hinge on the assumption that since the film company asked to be on the bridge, and was denied, the CSXT should have assumed the crew would break the law and show up there anyway. Based on the complaint one can pretty well know that being "...on or around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge..." does not apply to the previous trains because the complaint says that there wasn't room for a person on the bridge when a train was there so there was no way that the film crew could have been "on" the trestle bridge when one of the previous trains passed or they would have been hit by the train. That's why the language changed to "in view" when they discussed the previous trains.
Euclid Well anything is possible. The film crew may have been over at the nearest McDonalds when the two trains passed. But the complaint says they were on CSX property near the tracks and trestle.
Well anything is possible. The film crew may have been over at the nearest McDonalds when the two trains passed. But the complaint says they were on CSX property near the tracks and trestle.
Not exactly.
What the complaint says with regard to the other trains is that the film crew was "...in view of the trains' operators..." In view could be on the tracks or it could be a half mile away.
The phrasing about being "...on or around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge..." are used several times in the other paragraphs about the CSXT's liability and they all hinge on the assumption that since the film company asked to be on the bridge, and was denied, the CSXT should have assumed the crew would break the law and show up there anyway.
Based on the complaint one can pretty well know that being "...on or around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge..." does not apply to the previous trains because the complaint says that there wasn't room for a person on the bridge when a train was there so there was no way that the film crew could have been "on" the trestle bridge when one of the previous trains passed or they would have been hit by the train. That's why the language changed to "in view" when they discussed the previous trains.
Here is what it says as quoted from the filing:
“76. Moreover, despite its actual knowledge that the Midnight Rider cast and crew were on and around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge on February 20, CSX never sent a representative to the location to secure the removal of individuals and equipment from the railroad tracks.”
Note that it does not say that the film crew was on the bridge as you say it does in your analysis. They might have been on the tracks and around the trestle.
And note that is says “on and around” rather than “on or around” as you say it does. On and around means that both apply, possibly to different crew members and at different times. In other words, one crew member might have been on the property at some time and around the property at other times.
But "on and around" has to mean that at least somebody was on CSX property at some time. Whereas, on or around could mean that people were around the property, but nobody was on it.
Also "on and around" does not mean that anyone had to be on the trestle when this was observed. Everyone could have been on or around the tracks, and around the trestle; but not on it. Therefore, the fact that the film crew could not have been on the trestle during the passage of the first two trains (due to close clearance) does not preclude those trains reporting the crew to be "on or [and] around" the tracks, as you conclude.
Therefore, if some people were on the CSX property, which is alleged by the complaint; and if CSX knew that they were, which is alleged by the complaint; then how could CSX know that fact if it were not reported by one crews of the two trains that passed? I will grant you that it does not say that the CSX knowledge came from the crews of the two trains. But where else could the knowledge have come from?
It could not be known simply because the crew had asked for permission and was denied. I don't believe the knowledge could have resulted just from a construction of expecting that the film crew would reject their denial of permission and enter CSX property, as you seem to be saying in your analysis.
The complaint refers to the CSX knowledge as being "actual knowledge." I would think that would preclude a construction of knowledge merely based on an assumption that the film crew would trespass, and that assumption turning out to be correct.
One could also say, with just as much logic, that since they didn't call anybody, they didn't see anybody "near" the tracks. People near a road crossing would not be unusual. All of this specualtion assumes that the train crews saw the film crew, that the train crew knows where the right of way line is, that the film crew was on the right of way and that the film crew was close enough to the tracks that the train crews would percieve them as trespassers or a threat. If the film crew was under the impression that they had to wait for two trains they might just as logically have been sitting in their vehicles parked along the road waiting for two trains to pass, in which case there would be absolutely nothing to report by the first two trains.
In order for the third train to be warned the first train would have had to warn the second train, otherwise the second train would have no knowledge that the first train had seen anything.
I'd opine that the film crew stayed well off the CSX ROW until the second train passed. The presence of a film crew there would thus have been regarded a curiousity, not a hazard, as CSX had not given the crew permission to be on the CSX ROW.
In fact, the claim alleges that certain members of the production were well aware that they did not have permission to be on the CSX ROW and concealed same from the rest of the crew. One might extrapolate from that that those in charge of the shoot might intentionally stay well clear of the CSX ROW in order to not give rise to any suspicion on the part of CSX.
The exact location of the film crew, individually and as a whole, at various times will undoubtedly figure into the proceedings.
Once again, I'd opine that video from the previous two trains, if it exists, would show nothing out of the ordinary. People are found alongside the tracks all of the time.
And, as several have already pointed out, in suits such as this everyone from the head honchos to the pizza delivery boy, gets named. Eventually something will stick to someone. At least so they hope.
If the crews of the two trains saw the film crew on the right of way, they could have called somebody. Even though there may not have been time for someone to get to the site to remove the film crew, they could have called the third train, and told him to be prepared to stop.
I think the locomotive video will be decisive. If the film crew are anywhere on the right of way, the camera will show them, so if they are not visible, they could not have been on CSX property as the complaint alleges. However, if the video shows the film crew standing near the tracks and bridge, for instance, as the train rolls by, I predict a very bad legal outcome for CSX.
If the video does show this, then it ties in with the knowledge that CSX had in the awareness that the film crew desired to film on the trestle, that CSX had considered their request to do so, and that CSX had denied that request.
It also ties in with the knowledge that CSX had in that the film crew would be working in the area. So subsequently finding the film crew on the right of way near the bridge should have alerted CXS to connect the dots.
PNWRMNM This is why railroads have law departments and a network of local lawyers. Of course the plaintiffs are going to include CSX and allege anything they think has a chance of being true. This will grind on for years in the usual course of events. My prediction is CSX will defend with all possible vigor and make no payment to the plaintiffs. Mac
This is why railroads have law departments and a network of local lawyers. Of course the plaintiffs are going to include CSX and allege anything they think has a chance of being true. This will grind on for years in the usual course of events. My prediction is CSX will defend with all possible vigor and make no payment to the plaintiffs.
Mac
To what both Mac and Jeff alluded to in their posts.. This morning (05/22/2014 ) on the Early News there was a brief story that the Family of Young Lady who was killed I the incident that is the topic of this THREAD..
Has filed suit and it indicated that they were of course suing the Movie Company, and all the parties who were even remotely involved in this incident. No amount was mentioned, but you can be it will be substantial...The real winner in this will be the Lawyers.
It kind of reminds me of stories you hear every so often on the news about a burglar breaking into a house. He gets injured inside the house while committing the crime and then sues the homeowner for damages.
The reason these stories make the news is because sometimes the burglar wins the lawsuit. I wouldn't be surprised if CSX lost, because these days it seems when something bad happens to someone it's always someone else's fault.
Jeff
I see no point in predicting the outcome, but I certainly would not dismiss allegations against the CSX out of hand, as I see in several posts on various forums.
Whether the allegations are true or not, they are new information for the first time claiming that CSX is partly to blame.
schlimm And defendants and their lawyers will do anything to win, including tear down witnesses. It's called our American system of justice. Or perhaps you'd prefer something else, say the Russian or Chinese version?
And defendants and their lawyers will do anything to win, including tear down witnesses. It's called our American system of justice. Or perhaps you'd prefer something else, say the Russian or Chinese version?
Don't be putting words in my mouth!
Norm48327 BaltACD Remember - Plaintiff lawyers will throw anything and everything, real or imagined, against the 'Trial Wall' to see if they can get anything to stick. Lawyers and plaintiffs looking for deep pockets. Simple as that.
BaltACD Remember - Plaintiff lawyers will throw anything and everything, real or imagined, against the 'Trial Wall' to see if they can get anything to stick.
Remember - Plaintiff lawyers will throw anything and everything, real or imagined, against the 'Trial Wall' to see if they can get anything to stick.
Lawyers and plaintiffs looking for deep pockets. Simple as that.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The complaint is purely an allegation until something is proven. Filings are not known for accuracy but are intended to cover all possibilities.
I have no idea what will stick, but I am extremely surprised to learn (if the complaint is accurate) that CSX knew the film crew was on the tracks and trestle the day of the accident and did nothing.
Euclid When I made the point above that ACY responded to, my point was not that CSX was obligated to do anything with the knowledge of the film crew working in the area. It simply raised the question of what CSX expected if they had already denied permission to enter their property. However, I am quite surprised to now learn (according to the complaint) that CSX knew the movie cast and crew were on the tracks and trestle on the day of the accident. Here is the complaint against several defendants, including CSX: http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Jones-filed-complaint_Redacted__140521234456.pdf Quote from the filing: “76. Moreover, despite its actual knowledge that the Midnight Rider cast and crew were on and around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge on February 20, CSX never sent a representative to the location to secure the removal of individuals and equipment form the railroad tracks.”
When I made the point above that ACY responded to, my point was not that CSX was obligated to do anything with the knowledge of the film crew working in the area. It simply raised the question of what CSX expected if they had already denied permission to enter their property.
However, I am quite surprised to now learn (according to the complaint) that CSX knew the movie cast and crew were on the tracks and trestle on the day of the accident.
Here is the complaint against several defendants, including CSX:
http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Jones-filed-complaint_Redacted__140521234456.pdf
Quote from the filing:
“76. Moreover, despite its actual knowledge that the Midnight Rider cast and crew were on and around the railroad tracks and trestle bridge on February 20, CSX never sent a representative to the location to secure the removal of individuals and equipment form the railroad tracks.”
I am in concurrence with ACY on this. They had been denied permission to be on CSX property and the railroad had the right to expect them to obey such denial. CSX was under no obligation to send RR police to make sure they didn't trespass.
Regardless of the status of permission or non-permission, if CSX was aware of a filming along the ROW because their own employees (prior train) saw same, then a case can be made that CSX should have taken more precautions, such as sending those pesky railroad police there to chase them away.
Here is the complaint which details the alleged negligence on the part of CSX, Rayonier, and the others:
The parents of Sarah Jones have filed a lawsuit naming several defendants including CSX and Gregg Allman:
http://www.theolympian.com/2014/05/21/3142752/singer-allman-filmmakers-sued.html#
The lawsuit makes some interesting points such as this:
"Despite the fact that multiple CSX trains passed the 'Midnight Rider' cast and crew on February 20, with those individuals in view of the trains' operators, no warning was given to the subsequent train that ultimately caused Sarah's death," the lawsuit said.
Here is something that I have wondered about:
CSX denied permission to the film company, so CSX must have been asked for that permission. Several times right after the accident, it was reported that CSX knew the film company would be working in the area.
I guess CSX could have known that the film company would be working in the area either before being asked for permission or after they denied permission.
If CSX knew that the film company would be working in the area before the film company asked for permission, CSX must have been told that the film company would be working in the area for some reason other than in connection with a request for permission. Perhaps Rayonier told CSX about the project or even asked about permission on behalf of the film company.
However, CSX may have learned that the film company would be working in the area upon their request for permission made to CSX to work on CSX property. If that were the case, and since CSX denied permission, I would think that CSX would have been highly curious as to what the film company planned on doing when “working in the area” near CSX property.
tree68 Bottom line, it appears that assumptions were made, Apparently, at least some of those assumptions were wrong.
Bottom line, it appears that assumptions were made,
Apparently, at least some of those assumptions were wrong.
Agree with your bottom line. Those assumption(s) proved horribly wrong.
gardendance If the filmers thought they had gotten all the permission they needed from the lumber company, and thought that the lumber company owned all the tracks, including the bridge, why would they have thought they needed to ask CSX for any permission? Yet lots of posts and articles I've read say that they thought they had CSX permission. It's hard for me to believe they didn't think that some of the tracks were outside the lumber company's control.
If the filmers thought they had gotten all the permission they needed from the lumber company, and thought that the lumber company owned all the tracks, including the bridge, why would they have thought they needed to ask CSX for any permission? Yet lots of posts and articles I've read say that they thought they had CSX permission. It's hard for me to believe they didn't think that some of the tracks were outside the lumber company's control.
On the first page, I said this:
The sheriff said that one of the reasons that he not pursuing criminal charges is that there are “conflicting stories” of whether the film company had permission to be on the tracks. We know that one of the stories is that CSX sent the film company an email that denied permission to film on CSX property.
So the other story must be that the film company did have permission from CSX.
Up until now, the only thing that the film company president has said about the question of whether he had permission is, “It’s complicated.”
As far as I know, this [the article I linked to the original post here] is the first news report that suggests that there is an actual claim on the part of the film company that they did have permission from CSX to be on their property.
***
At that point, I was under the impression that the issue of permission is black and white, that is, either you have it or you don’t. So when they said there are “conflicting stories,” I knew one story, so I thought that automatically defined the opposite story. The opposite story would be that the film crew claims they had permission from CSX.
I thought that could be the only opposite story from the claim of CSX that they denied permission.
I did not believe that a claim of permission from Rayonier could be relevant, so I assume it could not be the opposite story.
Other than that conclusion on my part, I have not seen any report of the film crew having claimed to permission from CSX.
Later in this thread, I concluded that the permission issue may not be black and white. It may also include a requirement to know you do not have permission in order to not have permission. That appears to be possible in this case because Miller has claimed to have had permission from Rayonier, but offered no such claim of permission from CSX. I now think that a claim of permission from Rayonier could be relevant.
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
Euclid I understand that the Katie Lunn case was litigated and settled as a civil suit. But the news report that we are discussing which refers to an issue of permission is strictly related to the prospect of filing criminal charges. BaltACD made a point about dispatcher error that seemed to assert that a mistake that kills someone does automatically call for criminal charges. My point to BaltACD was that just because someone is responsible for an accident on the basis of their hierarchical, chain of command authority, does not necessarily mean they are subject to criminal charges. That is why I brought up the Katie Lunn example. So, with the CSX bridge/film crew case, I would definitely expect civil charges, but not necessarily criminal charges.
I understand that the Katie Lunn case was litigated and settled as a civil suit. But the news report that we are discussing which refers to an issue of permission is strictly related to the prospect of filing criminal charges.
BaltACD made a point about dispatcher error that seemed to assert that a mistake that kills someone does automatically call for criminal charges.
My point to BaltACD was that just because someone is responsible for an accident on the basis of their hierarchical, chain of command authority, does not necessarily mean they are subject to criminal charges. That is why I brought up the Katie Lunn example.
So, with the CSX bridge/film crew case, I would definitely expect civil charges, but not necessarily criminal charges.
Criminal charges are solely in the hands of the appropriate legal system - how those authorities proceed on any case is open to question and capricious at best. Over charge, under charge, no charge it is all in the hand of the local prosecutor.
Civil 'charges' are formulated by the involved parties - not local authorities, unless local authorities are trying to obtain some form of non-criminal judgment.
edblysard Euclid BaltACD ACY In any case, whether Miller "does permits" or not, he certainly had a responsibility to communicate with those who "do permits". Those communications will necessarily be important to the investigation and any legal action that results. Whether Miller 'does permits' or not; it is his responsibility to KNOW that the proper permits are in place before 'doing his thing'. Old but true saying in Dispatching - 'Protect, then authorize!. In the instance of this accident, Miller authorized without having protection in place. Well sure, there is the matter of responsibility. Miller is responsible for running his company. If he fails, maybe he should get fired or pay the financial price for that failure. But the question here is whether someone who fails or makes a mistake is a CRIMINAL. What about those signal maintainers in Chicago who tested their work with an un-flagged Amtrak train only to find that their work failed the test? That killed Katie Lunn on the grade crossing as the train hit her car at 79 mph with no gates or flashers activated. Were those signal maintainers prosecuted as criminals? Or was that just an honest mistake? No criminal prosecution, but a civil suit, settled for 6 million, but then you knew that already.
Euclid BaltACD ACY In any case, whether Miller "does permits" or not, he certainly had a responsibility to communicate with those who "do permits". Those communications will necessarily be important to the investigation and any legal action that results. Whether Miller 'does permits' or not; it is his responsibility to KNOW that the proper permits are in place before 'doing his thing'. Old but true saying in Dispatching - 'Protect, then authorize!. In the instance of this accident, Miller authorized without having protection in place. Well sure, there is the matter of responsibility. Miller is responsible for running his company. If he fails, maybe he should get fired or pay the financial price for that failure. But the question here is whether someone who fails or makes a mistake is a CRIMINAL. What about those signal maintainers in Chicago who tested their work with an un-flagged Amtrak train only to find that their work failed the test? That killed Katie Lunn on the grade crossing as the train hit her car at 79 mph with no gates or flashers activated. Were those signal maintainers prosecuted as criminals? Or was that just an honest mistake?
BaltACD ACY In any case, whether Miller "does permits" or not, he certainly had a responsibility to communicate with those who "do permits". Those communications will necessarily be important to the investigation and any legal action that results. Whether Miller 'does permits' or not; it is his responsibility to KNOW that the proper permits are in place before 'doing his thing'. Old but true saying in Dispatching - 'Protect, then authorize!. In the instance of this accident, Miller authorized without having protection in place.
ACY In any case, whether Miller "does permits" or not, he certainly had a responsibility to communicate with those who "do permits". Those communications will necessarily be important to the investigation and any legal action that results.
Whether Miller 'does permits' or not; it is his responsibility to KNOW that the proper permits are in place before 'doing his thing'.
Old but true saying in Dispatching - 'Protect, then authorize!.
In the instance of this accident, Miller authorized without having protection in place.
Well sure, there is the matter of responsibility. Miller is responsible for running his company. If he fails, maybe he should get fired or pay the financial price for that failure. But the question here is whether someone who fails or makes a mistake is a CRIMINAL.
What about those signal maintainers in Chicago who tested their work with an un-flagged Amtrak train only to find that their work failed the test? That killed Katie Lunn on the grade crossing as the train hit her car at 79 mph with no gates or flashers activated.
Were those signal maintainers prosecuted as criminals? Or was that just an honest mistake?
No criminal prosecution, but a civil suit, settled for 6 million, but then you knew that already.
But that was urban area Chicago, not rural Georgia.....?????
oltmanndEuclidI can’t imagine why the prosecutor would be stumped as to whether or not Miller had permission. There's two possibilities. Miller didn't have permission but mistakenly thought he did (from Rayonier). Miller didn't have permission and knew it and tried to get away with it.
EuclidI can’t imagine why the prosecutor would be stumped as to whether or not Miller had permission.
There's two possibilities. Miller didn't have permission but mistakenly thought he did (from Rayonier). Miller didn't have permission and knew it and tried to get away with it.
Don,
I agree with your conclusion. I asked the above question before I concluded that the article had misstated the issue. The article made it sound as if the question was whether Miller had permission from CSX. I think the question is whether Miller realized he did not have permission from CSX.
This more complex question would explain why the article refers to it as a “major question,” and implies that it is holding up the decision to press criminal charges.
Mookie CSSHEGEWISCH jeffhergert Since the dream was about a bed on railroad tracks, I wonder if it was a feather bed? Jeff A rather unsubtle slur directed toward Brotherhood members. I think you are missing the point. My Dad was union and back in the 70's I heard a lot of featherbedding conversations. I hadn't heard that term since then and was amused that it was still around.
CSSHEGEWISCH jeffhergert Since the dream was about a bed on railroad tracks, I wonder if it was a feather bed? Jeff A rather unsubtle slur directed toward Brotherhood members.
jeffhergert Since the dream was about a bed on railroad tracks, I wonder if it was a feather bed? Jeff
Since the dream was about a bed on railroad tracks, I wonder if it was a feather bed?
A rather unsubtle slur directed toward Brotherhood members.
Yes I am a brotherhood member. Mookie got my point. I wondered if anyone would make the connection from the past.
These days featherbedding is still only now it's in the form of top heavy management. It seems everytime you turn around they are creating some new vice president of this or that.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
oltmannd There's two possibilities. Miller didn't have permission but mistakenly thought he did (from Rayonier). Miller didn't have permission and knew it and tried to get away with it.
And it's the prosecutor's task to ferret out whether Miller had permission or not (according to Miller). He's likely playing the "Lt. Colombo" act to trip Miller.
Euclid tree68 EuclidWhy would there be any question about that? From where we sit, there isn't. From where the director, et al, sit, they may not have realized there was a difference, as has already been noted. The question is coming strictly from where the prosecutor sits. On one hand, he has CSX with written proof that the permission was denied. On the other hand, he has the film maker with no evidence that he received permission from CSX. I can’t imagine why the prosecutor would be stumped as to whether or not Miller had permission.
tree68 EuclidWhy would there be any question about that? From where we sit, there isn't. From where the director, et al, sit, they may not have realized there was a difference, as has already been noted.
EuclidWhy would there be any question about that?
From where we sit, there isn't.
From where the director, et al, sit, they may not have realized there was a difference, as has already been noted.
The question is coming strictly from where the prosecutor sits.
On one hand, he has CSX with written proof that the permission was denied. On the other hand, he has the film maker with no evidence that he received permission from CSX.
I can’t imagine why the prosecutor would be stumped as to whether or not Miller had permission.
Erik,
I think it does depend, as you say, but there seems to be a widespread, contrary belief that the matter of having permission is black and white. Either you have it or you don’t, so there is no room for excuses such as making a mistake.
Euclid People make mistakes. Does that make them a criminal?
People make mistakes. Does that make them a criminal?
The answer is "It depends". If it can be shown that the person who made the mistake was behaving recklessly, then that person could face criminal charges, especially if the person in question has a history of reckless behavior.
There's also the issue of "corporate culture" where the "Thou shall not question the director" really pins the issue of liability on the director.
- Erik
P.S. The 2003 "Cedar Fire" in San Diego County was started by a lost hunter who built a signal fire. He did face criminal charges for that as quite a few people died in the the resulting fire. Paralleling the case discussed in this thread, there were many people (primarily those who did not grow up in southern California) who thought it was an innocent mistake, and many people who were ready to "hang him" as starting a fire in the back country when a Santa Ana condition is forecast is asking for a disaster.
ACYYou're right, Euclid. Another quote from Miller was "I don't do permits," and that is the quote I should have put in there. I find it exceedingly interesting that the role of the Locations staff has been so much ignored in this discussion, and I'm sure it will be very important in any legal action. In any case, whether Miller "does permits" or not, he certainly had a responsibility to communicate with those who "do permits". Those communications will necessarily be important to the investigation and any legal action that results.
I don’t think anybody will escape justice, but one has to analyze one’s expectations to see if they are realistic about what justice should be.
I don’t think Miller was being flippant when he said he does not do the permits. I think he sincerely meant that he had other people that dealt with that responsibility. He may be the top guy, but that does not mean that he is legally responsible for any act of criminal negligence by his underlings. And the people who were supposed to get permits could have made a mistake.
by a Brotherhood member.
Euclid I don’t know anything about Gregg Allman, but I have to wonder about his dream about a hospital bed on the tracks. It must have been a powerful dream for him to have made it a part of his memoirs. Dreams are often thought to have meaning to the life of the dreamer. It would seem to me that a dream about a bed on a railroad track on a high trestle would symbolize great risk and danger. It would imply sleeping in a bed on the tracks, which would suggest being unaware of the danger. Dreams of foreboding are of often believed to be premonitions. It is as if a dream premonition of doom might be a warning to change course in real life, like a captain of a ship dreaming about hitting an iceberg. We do know that Gregg Allman’s dream was so significant to him that he chose to make a movie about it. And that decision took the dream into a physical manifestation that played out a tremendous misfortune. I don’t know what happened in his actual dream, but the great risk and danger implied in the dream certainly led to its logical conclusion in reality.
I don’t know anything about Gregg Allman, but I have to wonder about his dream about a hospital bed on the tracks. It must have been a powerful dream for him to have made it a part of his memoirs. Dreams are often thought to have meaning to the life of the dreamer.
It would seem to me that a dream about a bed on a railroad track on a high trestle would symbolize great risk and danger. It would imply sleeping in a bed on the tracks, which would suggest being unaware of the danger.
Dreams of foreboding are of often believed to be premonitions. It is as if a dream premonition of doom might be a warning to change course in real life, like a captain of a ship dreaming about hitting an iceberg.
We do know that Gregg Allman’s dream was so significant to him that he chose to make a movie about it. And that decision took the dream into a physical manifestation that played out a tremendous misfortune. I don’t know what happened in his actual dream, but the great risk and danger implied in the dream certainly led to its logical conclusion in reality.
Greg Allman dropped the suit against the director, Miller. They reached an out-of-court settlement to make the legal proceedings moot. No indication of whether the film will continue. We will have to wait to see if criminal charges are brought to see if any more evidence surfaces.
Allman Drops Suit
Those are good questions. There were three different organizations communicating with each other, and it probably involved more than one person from each organization. It will be interesting to learn the decision about criminal charges, and who they will apply to if they are made.
Did someone on the film crew tell Rayonier that they were planning on using the bridge? If so, did Rayonier tell them that the bridge was CSX property?
Did the film crew tell CSX they had permission from Rayonier, and did they tell CSX where they were planning to film? If so, did CSX send the film crew information on who owned what?
Did Rayonier have a person escort the film crew? If so, why didn't that person tell the film crew the bridge was CSX property? Did the film crew ignore the person? If Raynoier didn't have a person escorting the film crew, why? Did Raynoier tell what was there property and what was owned by CSX? Or did Rayonier just gave the film crew an area that they wandered out of?
There are still many more questions.
It would be interesting to hear the whole story about how this played out. Their first inclination must have been to go to Rayonier to ask for permission because Rayonier had a gate that needed to be opened for access.
https://www.shootonline.com/news/director-randall-miller-testifies-about-midnight-rider-fatal-crash
Got it. I would not think it would be difficult to prove - given all the circumstances I described before. I get the feeling that the film crew - or at least the most in charge of the film crew were a little lazy when it came to "details".
Mookie Either definition says no permission, no go!
Either definition says no permission, no go!
Only the first definition says that. The second one says “go” even without permission.
Regarding my second version of the possible definition above:
“Trespass is defined by the act of entering another person’s property without permission while knowing that you are entering that property, and knowing that you do not have permission to do so.”
That is the second meaning of the two meanings I see in the original definition sentence. It requires “knowing that you do not have permission” in order to constitute trespass. It is impossible to know you don’t have permission if you believe you do have permission. So that hinges on the credibility of the person’s claim of believing he had permission. In Miller’s case, that credibility seems quite high.
But, as I say, I do not know which of the two different and conflicting meanings of the trespass definitions are correct.
According to what Falcon48 said on page 2, the meaning of my sentence version above would be the correct meaning. He said this:
“In order to find the any of the film people guilty of criminal conduct, a DA will essentially have to prove that the film people knew they didn't have authority to be on CSX property, and went there anyway…”
And you still have ignorance of the law -no excuse. Belief in this case will probably not pass muster..
My "real"puter is upstairs. Forgive the disjointed thoughts..
But in this particular case, #1 would apply since Csx would have the bridges marked.
It is a little dizzying. I had to read that definition sentence many times before I could parse the meaning. But I am convinced that my explanation of the problem is airtight. The problem with the sentence is the kind of thing that could have caused train collisions back in the days of writing train orders to control trains. The words had to latch together with the single-meaning logic of an interlocking plant. If the language inadvertently produced two conflicting meanings, it was called a “lap up” and it authorized two trains to occupy the same space at the same time.
In my example, I used one owner and two parcels. In the Georgia case, there are two owners and two parcels. Either way, the analogy works because the point is that the person entering the parcels can do so without knowing that they don’t have permission if they believe they do have permission. And this misunderstanding can arise from various means such as receiving permission, but entering the wrong property, or receiving permission from the wrong owner.
Regarding the flawed sentence, I would write it in either of the two following ways, depending on which meaning it is to have:
Trespass is defined by the act of entering another person’s property without permission, and knowing that you are entering that property.
Trespass is defined by the act of entering another person’s property without permission while knowing that you are entering that property, and knowing that you do not have permission to do so.
E: I'm a little dizzy after reading the above, but have one comment: your example uses one owner.
in this case there were two.
According to the definition I posted above:
Trespass is defined by the act of knowingly entering another person’s property without permission.
What I have concluded about a person not trespassing because they believe they have permission centers around the word, knowingly in the definition sentence. But I have decided to draw no conclusions on this matter because I do not trust the definition. There are many definitions of trespass, and they are all differently worded. Most do not contain the word, knowingly.
But even if you accept the definition sentence as valid, it is flawed with ambiguity. In that sentence, knowingly can apply to two different conditions that establish trespass:
1) The condition of knowing that you are entering someone else’s property.
2) The condition of knowing that you don’t have permission to enter someone else’s property.
The ambiguity is that the sentence does not clarify whether the second condition applies or just the first one. It is obvious that the first condition applies, but there is no way to know whether the second condition also applies. And dependent on that choice, the meaning of the sentence changes. The two meanings conflict with each other.
EXAMPLE:
A person owns two parcels of land called parcel A and parcel B. Both parcels are posted with no trespassing signs.
The owner gives another person to permission to enter parcel A.
The person intending to enter parcel A mistakenly enters parcel B.
If condition #1 applies and condition #2 does not apply, then the person is trespassing.
If both condition #1 and #2 apply, then the person is not trespassing.
Either meaning could be valid, but you cannot have both meanings in the sentence because they conflict with each other. Therefore, in my opinion, the reference to that definition of trespass is bogus.
What the prosecution has to show is that any “reasonable person” would view being on a train track/trestle was inherently dangerous, and bring into question if “reasonable” precautions were taken to insure the safety of the film crew.
Mr. Millers statement that “I don’t do permits” in no way absolves him of responsibility, in the same manner that “We were just following orders “didn’t absolve the Nazis of their guilt.
Ignorance of what tracks or what property he was allowed to use doesn’t work either.
That’s like saying I can walk into your home, sit down and eat your dinner and sleep in your bed, all because I didn’t know I couldn’t.
As the person making the decision to film on the trestle, the moment he made that decision, responsibility rested on him to make sure, absolutely sure that they had permission to be there, use the trestle, and had look outs placed in such a manner that ample warning would be afforded the crew.
Assuming you are so important that making sure your employees are working in a safe environment is somehow beneath you or is somehow not your responsibility isn’t a good excuse either.
Question::: Every CSX bridge that I have seen has 2 "no trespassing CSX Railroad "signs one on each side of the track. They are always on each end of the bridge. So a total of 4 signs. Were these signs there or maybe removed for cinematic license ? ?
OK - several things come to mind: And I don't know the answers. How does the railroad mark the property on a bridge/trestle? Do they put the name of the railroad and no tresspassing on the ends of these?
I understand the confusion on whose bridge/trestle, but "ignorance of the law is no excuse"?
And if like the train hopper, who would most likely wait for the train to really slow down or stop, by then the train is around property that is most likely marked with tresspassing signs. I just have to believe that the bridge/trestle was marked somewhere.
I live in a fair sized city and tracks all through town are marked, marked, marked. And the rural isn't that far away and the crossings, bridges, any place someone could unthinkingly walk are marked BNSF No Tresspassing.
Bedtime. To be continued.
Mookie,
I know it seems surprising, and I would not predict how it will go. But it depends on the circumstances of the act. Say a person went out and entered railroad property and hopped a train. Say there were no signs warning about trespassing. It could be reasonably argued that the person had to know it was not his property, and it must belong to the railroad built upon it. The fact that the person hopped the train would indicate a conscious intent to enter upon the property as opposed to just wandering onto it without thinking about it. It seems to me that this would qualify as trespass because the person knew he was trespassing.
Now, Miller also entered railroad property and it would likewise seem obvious that he knew he was trespassing, just as the example of the person hopping the train. But the difference with Miller’s case is that he had sought permission from Rayonier, and could have easily believed that the permission extended to the trestle.
It may seem farfetched to us, but is it really when you consider that Miller knew nothing about who owned what? He might not have given it much thought. I don’t know how much rail trackage Rayonier has on their property, but they might have quite a bit. Rayonier people may have told Miller that he could film on the trestle, and Miller might have assumed that Rayonier had that authority. It makes no difference whether any of the interpretation was correct or not. All that matters is that it might have led to Miller mistakenly believing he had permission. And if he believed that, he could not have known that he did not have permission. Therefore, according to the definition of trespass, he did not trespass.
Now I am confused. You put a bed on train tracks that are not owned by a business that may have given you permission to be on their tracks....the train runs over you....and you may not be guilty of tresspassing. (I need to take this slowly, because I think in sound bites. So a little at a time.)
This seems to take any responsibility off this Miller. He has none whatsoever? Isn't this akin to lying in the street on a dark and rainy night and a car hits you. But the driver is charged and not the person getting hit because he was incredibly drunk at the time and didn't know what he was doing? (he was injured and survived)
This leaves the driver of the car and possibly the city (for a whole host of reasons) as the parties causing the damage and the drunk totally blameless and probably clueless. AND leaves the driver of the car open to having to pay medical on the drunk.
Now as to whether to bring charges, drunk walking is public intox (tresspassing is being on property w/o permission) Maybe criminal, albeit if there were any more than minor consequences. If the car had run up on a sidewalk and hit a pedestrian - sounds like m v homicide at the very least. A criminal prosecution.
The film crew, through their negligence, killed a member. The train was not out of place. The railroad was doing business. The train crew was doing their job. Yet a film crew person died. If they had tied her to the rails and the train ran over her, would that make any difference in criminal charges?
Something caused the death of this young lady. She didn't die of natural causes. Ergo, I would think someone should be held liable in her death. Even if some unknown person granted permission, someone should be charged in her death. I just don't see it being the railroad.
Civil suits galore would be another whole subject.
I am more inclined to think the prosecution is taking their time to be sure they charge all of the people that should be charged and have all their ducks in order before taking this to court. And include a definite review if all protocol was followed on the side of the railroad. I doubt there is much more the railroad could do beside put a flagman on the bridge 24/7. Whether or not they gave permission, to me, is a moot point since most railroads post no tresspassing signs around their property when they think citizens may...tresspass.
edblysard Goodness, the movies have done such a disservice with that phrase, “Beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is not what the law requires. “Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty. "The shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. The term "reasonable doubt" is therefore used. If doubt does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt". The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country.” Source, Wikipedia and the last State Judge I sat in a jury panel for. What is required is that a case be presented in such a manner that any reasonable person would have no doubt that the crime as presented/outlined has been committed, and that the person charged is guilty of said crime. The state, (prosecution) has to prove its case, the defendant is not required to do a thing. Under our laws, if the state cannot or does not prove its case, regardless if you, as a jurist think and feel the guy is guilty, the law requires you to return a not guilty verdict. On the other hand, if the state can prove its case, and you, as a “reasonable person” think the facts presented shows guilt of the defendant of the crime(s) as charged, then a guilty verdict is required to be returned.
Goodness, the movies have done such a disservice with that phrase, “Beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is not what the law requires.
“Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty.
"The shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. The term "reasonable doubt" is therefore used.
If doubt does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt". The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country.”
Source, Wikipedia and the last State Judge I sat in a jury panel for.
What is required is that a case be presented in such a manner that any reasonable person would have no doubt that the crime as presented/outlined has been committed, and that the person charged is guilty of said crime.
The state, (prosecution) has to prove its case, the defendant is not required to do a thing.
Under our laws, if the state cannot or does not prove its case, regardless if you, as a jurist think and feel the guy is guilty, the law requires you to return a not guilty verdict.
On the other hand, if the state can prove its case, and you, as a “reasonable person” think the facts presented shows guilt of the defendant of the crime(s) as charged, then a guilty verdict is required to be returned.
What is at stake at this point is not whether Miller committed the crime of trespass. It is whether a crime of trespass was committed.
According to this source, a person must know they are entering another person's property without permission in order to be guilty of the crime of trespass:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trespass
From the link:
Trespass
Trespass is defined by the act of knowingly entering another person’s property without permission. Such action is held to infringe upon a property owner’s legal right to enjoy the benefits of ownership. Criminal charges, which range from violation to felony, may be brought against someone who interferes with another person’s legal property rights. Criminal trespasses, depending on the venue of jurisdiction and case circumstances, fall under different subsets of law. When a trespass is carried out against another person, rather than against his/her property, the trespasser is likely to be charged with assault or battery. Actions violating the real property of another are handled as Trespasses to Land. Violations to personal property are handled as torts.
Under Tort Law, a property owner may bring a Civil Law suit against a trespasser in order to recover damages or receive compensatory relief for injury suffered as a direct result of a trespass. In a tort action, the plaintiff must prove that the offender had, but knowingly violated, a legal duty to respect another person’s right to property, which resulted in direct injury or loss to the plaintiff.
Even though CSX denied Miller permission to film on their property, Miller may not have known he was on CSX property. He may not have gotten the email, or read it, or understood where CSX property was. Or he may have thought he had sufficient permission from Rayonier to enter CSX property.
Mookie The judge in this case may make the determination that CSX did send notification to the film crew. Now, I wonder if the way it was sent will be the preponderance. E-mail, maybe not so much. Return receipt would be a lot stronger. Clueless here as to how people are notified. Hopefully more than just a verbal warning. Surely the attorneys for CSX have a pretty iron-clad way of serving notice on anyone denied permission?(other than just shooing them away for individuals) Interesting. And it will still probably come down to the judgement of the judge and or jury? And I would assume that we do probably have a couple of attorneys on the forum. The opinion of the prosecutors would be different than the defense attorneys. So some of the replies might be colored by which side they are on?
The judge in this case may make the determination that CSX did send notification to the film crew. Now, I wonder if the way it was sent will be the preponderance. E-mail, maybe not so much. Return receipt would be a lot stronger. Clueless here as to how people are notified. Hopefully more than just a verbal warning. Surely the attorneys for CSX have a pretty iron-clad way of serving notice on anyone denied permission?(other than just shooing them away for individuals)
Interesting. And it will still probably come down to the judgement of the judge and or jury? And I would assume that we do probably have a couple of attorneys on the forum. The opinion of the prosecutors would be different than the defense attorneys. So some of the replies might be colored by which side they are on?
The way the article states the issue is that the question as to whether producers had permission to shoot on the CSX tracks is a problem that is making it difficult for the district attorney to decide whether to press charges.
I don’t think he has any doubt about whether CSX denied Miller permission to be on CSX property. It has been reported that CSX has an email showing that they denied permission. I think that would be sufficient proof that CSX denied permission.
But proof that CSX sent a notice to Miller denying permission is apparently not enough to make a criminal case. There is still a question of whether Miller received the email, read it, understood it, and understood where CSX property was. As Don and Jeff have pointed out, Rayonier gave permission to be on their property, they told Miller about Rayonier trains that were due, and they have their own Rayonier tracks.
All of this could have given Miller the impression that he was authorized to shoot on the bridge. While the issue seems clear as a bell to us, it may not have been at all clear to Miller. And if Falcon48 is correct, that misunderstanding on the part of Miller may be enough to prevent the district attorney from filing charges against Miller. If that happens, it will never go to court as a criminal matter. But I suppose it will go to court as a civil matter, and justice will be served.
Mookie I'm going to comment - probably a little left-handed - but shouldn't the courts take into consideration - personal responsibility. If CSX can prove denial, then does personal responsibility take over. Regardless of what Rayonier did or did not permit - it wasn't their tracks/property?
I'm going to comment - probably a little left-handed - but shouldn't the courts take into consideration - personal responsibility. If CSX can prove denial, then does personal responsibility take over. Regardless of what Rayonier did or did not permit - it wasn't their tracks/property?
I understand your point. That would be my natural reaction too. If you trespass, you are guilty and can be charged and prosecuted. Not knowing that you are trespassing is no excuse. But after hearing what Falcon48 said on page 2, I am not so sure about my natural reaction. He said this:
“In order to find the any of the film people guilty of criminal conduct, a DA will essentially have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the film people knew they didn't have authority to be on CSX property, and went there anyway (he'll have to prove more than that, but he must prove this point to have any case at all) "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a much higher standard of proof than applies in civil cases ("preponderance of the evidence", which is a fancy way of saying "more likely than not"). If there's any real ambiguity on the "authority" point, the DA could well decide not to prosecute, For example, if some CSX official had purported to give the film crew permission (as suggested in some earlier posts), even if it wasn't in writing, and that authority was not unambiguously withdrawn, the DA could decide he doesn't have "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence for a criminal case. The film company, in this situation, could still face civil liability for negligence.”
I do not know if he is correct, but it sounds like he has knowledge in this matter. In any case, there needs to be an explanation for why the article says this:
“A major question in the tragedy is whether producers had permission to shoot on the CSX tracks.”
Since we know that CSX denied permission, and Miller cannot show any evidence of having permission from CSX, it is hard to understand why there would be a “major question” as to whether Miler had permission to shoot on CSX tracks.
I think the answer to that mystery is that the article is sloppily written and thus erroneously misstates the issue. What it should say is this:
“A major question in the tragedy is whether producers knew they did not have permission to shoot on CSX tracks.”
From all of the convoluted statements from Miller about receiving permission and advice about trains from Rayonier, I think it is quite possible that he did not know that he did not have permission to film on CSX property.
If Falcon48 is correct; and If it cannot be shown that Miller knew he did not have permission, I think there is a good chance that no criminal charges will be filed against him.
The question, according to the article, is whether the prosecutor has the evidence that film maker did not have permission. A lot of the evidence has been reported, including the claim that CSX has the email that they sent to the film maker refusing permission for him to film on CSX property. I assume that CSX has shown this email to the prosecutor, so we know there is good evidence that CSX denied permission.
I suppose this could simply be a case of more of the sloppy reporting. The real question may not be whether the film maker had permission, as the article says. Instead it may be a question of whether or not the lack of permission from CSX is enough to bring criminal charges IF Miller did not realize he had no permission.
If Miller says he did not see the email from CSX denying permission; and if he says he believed he did have permission from what he was told by Rayonier; then there may be no criminal intent, which someone earlier said would be necessary in order to bring criminal charges.
The picture that seems to be emerging could easily be a case of imprecision by the the movie company on EXACTLY where they would be filming.
IF there were tracks on the lumber company's property and IF the film crew didn't understand the the tracks on the bridge belonged to the CSX or misrepresented (accidentally or intentionally) where they would be filming to the CSX I can certainly see where confusion could arise.
If the film company approached the lumber company and asked to film on their tracks, recieving permission and the advice that there were only two trains per day (on lumber property) then went to the CSX and told them they would be filming ON THE LUMBER CO PROPERTY, the CSX might have said that's fine (because they weren't going to be on their property). If I was a trainmaster and you came to me and said you were going to be filming on the lumber company's tracks, I would ask if you got permission from the lumber co. If you said yes, I'd tell you to go for it.
If the film company didn't know who owned what track or where they actually were (highly probable) I can easily see a scenario where all the statements could be true, the film company talked to the lumber company and got permission, they talked to the CSX and got "permission", the CSX never granted them permission to be on thier tracks and they were told there would only be two trains a day.
I'm thinking the film crew didn't know where they would be, couldn't accurately describe where they would be, and then didn't know where they were when they were filming.
Euclid On one hand, he has CSX with written proof that the permission was denied. On the other hand, he has the film maker with no evidence that he received permission from CSX. I can’t imagine why the prosecutor would be stumped as to whether or not Miller had permission.
Unless the prosecutor has the CSX refusal in hand, he has nothing. For that matter, we have no proof that someone at the production company actually received the refusal.
If he's worth his salt as a prosecutor, he's not going to tip his hand any more than absolutely necessary. No sense giving the other parties an opportunity to concoct a defense.
Regardless, he can't pronounce guilt or innocence. That has to happen in a court of law. At that time, everyone will present their side of the story (including hard evidence). The two sides will present proof of permission granted or denied (including appropriate documentation). Fingers will be pointed ("It wasn't my fault."). Assumptions will be vetted.
At this point, all we of the forum have on the case is what we've read. We don't have the requests, refusals, or any other pertinent documents. In the end, this may be an open and shut case, but we won't be able to tell that until the end, will we?
And this appears to be a case of "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but you don't realize that what you heard was not what I meant."
Too, since it hasn't been established who supposedly got what permission they had, it's entirely possible that the director (while assuming that everything had been arranged for) was never told that CSX had turned the request down.
Or not.
Time (and legal proceedings) will tell.
This kind of misunderstanding makes a lot of sense. But, with the issue of legitimate permission, it seems like there would be no dispute whatsoever. So I wonder why the article says, “A major question in the tragedy is whether producers had permission to shoot on the CSX tracks.”
Why would there be any question about that?
Euclid Miller is saying that he got permission from Rayonier. He also says he was warned to watch out for two trains from Rayonier, and was told that there would be no more trains that day after the two of them. Apparently, this information came from Rayonier, but once again, there cannot be clarity. Miller also said he staged lookouts along the track to watch for trains and warn the crew if any trains approached. Yet, Miller said he did not realize the trestle was on live trackage. After being warned about the two trains and staging lookouts to watch for trains, how can one not realize that the trackage is live?
Miller is saying that he got permission from Rayonier. He also says he was warned to watch out for two trains from Rayonier, and was told that there would be no more trains that day after the two of them. Apparently, this information came from Rayonier, but once again, there cannot be clarity.
Miller also said he staged lookouts along the track to watch for trains and warn the crew if any trains approached.
Yet, Miller said he did not realize the trestle was on live trackage. After being warned about the two trains and staging lookouts to watch for trains, how can one not realize that the trackage is live?
I haven't followed this thread real close, just look at it once in a while. I don't know the layout of the Rayonier facility, but it sounds like there is a spur into the facility. Any "permission" and information on train movements from Rayonier would only apply to their specific trackage and adjacent land. The trouble is that many in the general population, those outside of the railroad community, often have no concept of railroads. Sure, they know about trains, but mostly from waiting at crossings or what the latest media story is. Some probably think Amtrak or other passenger trains when they hear the word train or railroad. Many don't realize that railroad R-O-W is private property, let alone who owns what.
As crazy has it sounds, I could see someone with (for the sake of argument) permission and information from one entity (Rayonier) that has tracks on it's property thinking it extended to all the tracks and adjacent property in that immediate area.
EuclidAt some point in the future, maybe this story will make sense, but it has a long way to go.
It's starting to sound as if Rayonier might have been talking about their siding and lead - as that's the extent of what they can give permission for - and Miller was assuming it was all the track he could see, including the main. Why wouldn't either ask the other for clarification? Probably because it never occured to either party about what was "obvious". (and in Miller's case, obviously wrong.) Or, Miller was operating on the "forgiveness is easier than permission" rule.
At some point in the future, maybe this story will make sense, but it has a long way to go. Miller said, “It was not my job to get permits.” One big question is this: Why does an interviewer let Miller get off with that response without asking a follow-up as to whose job it was?
The article says, “A major question in the tragedy is whether producers had permission to shoot on the CSX tracks.”
The BIGGEST question of all is this:
How can there possibly be a major question of whether Miller had permission when CSX has proved that they refused permission, and Miller is giving these dingdong answers as to whether he had permission?
While it may not be the Directors job to 'obtain permits', it is his job to know that the required permits have been obtained!
Report: 'Midnight Rider' Director Says It Was 'Not My Job' to Obtain Permits to Shoot on Tracks Variety (Online) By Ted Johnson May 12, 2014 Appearing at a court hearing on Monday, "Midnight Rider" director Randall Miller said that other members of the crew were tasked with obtaining written permits to shoot on CSX train tracks on Feb. 20, when an oncoming freight train unexpectedly came on the rural Georgia location and struck and killed second camera assistant Sarah Jones and injured six crew members. "I did not do permits, so I didn't see the permits," Miller said under questioning from David Long-Daniels, the lawyer for singer Gregg Allman, at a hearing in Chatham County Courthouse in Savannah. Allman is suing to reclaim rights from the movie, which depicts his life story. Allman contends that Miller and his Unclaimed Freight Prods. no longer have the rights because principal photography wasn't started on time and because the production failed to pay him a full $150,000. The hearing was over Allman's motion for a restraining order to halt the movie until the issue over rights is resolved. A county prosecutor is reviewing the results of an investigation to determine if criminal charges will be filed. A major question in the tragedy is whether producers had permission to shoot on the CSX tracks. According to Wayne County sheriff's deputies, CSX claims that they did not. At the hearing, Miller said that the crew had permission from Rayonier, which has a paper plant nearby and owns the land surrounding the tracks. According to the Savannah Morning News, when Long-Daniels on Monday pressed Miller whether they had written permission from CSX, the director answered, "That's not my job." But Miller pushed back at the suggestion that they were reckless in the shooting. "I almost got run over by a train myself. I did," he said at the hearing. "I was the last one on the train track." Miller said that he did not know that the location was on a live train trestle. "We were told there were two trains from Rayonier coming through, and no more trains that day," he said, according to the Savannah Morning News. The paper also reported that Miller said that crew members were placed as lookouts along the tracks for any trains, but he did not know how far away. Miller testified that Allman was informed that they would be shooting on the trestle, including a dream sequence with a hospital bed across the tracks. The dream sequence is part of Allman's memoir, but in the screenplay, written by Miller and wife Jody Savin. Allman has argued that, given the tragedy, the production is injuring his reputation. But Miller's lawyers say that principal photography did start on time, and that the full payment was not made for tax reasons.
Appearing at a court hearing on Monday, "Midnight Rider" director Randall Miller said that other members of the crew were tasked with obtaining written permits to shoot on CSX train tracks on Feb. 20, when an oncoming freight train unexpectedly came on the rural Georgia location and struck and killed second camera assistant Sarah Jones and injured six crew members.
"I did not do permits, so I didn't see the permits," Miller said under questioning from David Long-Daniels, the lawyer for singer Gregg Allman, at a hearing in Chatham County Courthouse in Savannah.
Allman is suing to reclaim rights from the movie, which depicts his life story. Allman contends that Miller and his Unclaimed Freight Prods. no longer have the rights because principal photography wasn't started on time and because the production failed to pay him a full $150,000. The hearing was over Allman's motion for a restraining order to halt the movie until the issue over rights is resolved.
A county prosecutor is reviewing the results of an investigation to determine if criminal charges will be filed. A major question in the tragedy is whether producers had permission to shoot on the CSX tracks. According to Wayne County sheriff's deputies, CSX claims that they did not. At the hearing, Miller said that the crew had permission from Rayonier, which has a paper plant nearby and owns the land surrounding the tracks.
According to the Savannah Morning News, when Long-Daniels on Monday pressed Miller whether they had written permission from CSX, the director answered, "That's not my job."
But Miller pushed back at the suggestion that they were reckless in the shooting.
"I almost got run over by a train myself. I did," he said at the hearing. "I was the last one on the train track."
Miller said that he did not know that the location was on a live train trestle. "We were told there were two trains from Rayonier coming through, and no more trains that day," he said, according to the Savannah Morning News. The paper also reported that Miller said that crew members were placed as lookouts along the tracks for any trains, but he did not know how far away.
Miller testified that Allman was informed that they would be shooting on the trestle, including a dream sequence with a hospital bed across the tracks. The dream sequence is part of Allman's memoir, but in the screenplay, written by Miller and wife Jody Savin.
Allman has argued that, given the tragedy, the production is injuring his reputation. But Miller's lawyers say that principal photography did start on time, and that the full payment was not made for tax reasons.
Greg Allman has sued to stop any further filming on this project, according to an article in Rolling Stone Magazine written by Ryan Reed. The aricle does say that the producers did not have permission to be on the tracks. This same article also appeared in the Huffington Post and Yahoo news.
Falcon48 I know nothing about the actual facts of this incident, save what I have read (and I've learned a long time ago not to rely on media reports for much of anything). But, in talking about what the sherifff or the DA may or may not do, keep in mind that there's a difference between criminal and civil liability. In order to find the any of the film people guiltly of criminal conduct, a DA will essentially have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the film people knew they didn't have authority to be on CSX property, and went there anyway (he'll have to prove more than that, but he must prove this point to have any case at all) "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a much higher standard of proof than applies in civil cases ("preponderance of the evidence", which is a fancy way of saying "more likely than not"). If there's any real ambiguity on the "authority" point, the DA could well decide not to prosecute, For example, if some CSX official had purported to give the film crew permission (as suggested in some earlier posts), even if it wasn't in writing, and that authority was not unambigiuously withdrawn, the DA could decide he doesn't have "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence for a criminal case. The film company, in this situation, could still face civil liabilty for negligence. Again, I don't know what actually happened. I suppose we'll all find out in due course.
I know nothing about the actual facts of this incident, save what I have read (and I've learned a long time ago not to rely on media reports for much of anything). But, in talking about what the sherifff or the DA may or may not do, keep in mind that there's a difference between criminal and civil liability.
In order to find the any of the film people guiltly of criminal conduct, a DA will essentially have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the film people knew they didn't have authority to be on CSX property, and went there anyway (he'll have to prove more than that, but he must prove this point to have any case at all) "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a much higher standard of proof than applies in civil cases ("preponderance of the evidence", which is a fancy way of saying "more likely than not"). If there's any real ambiguity on the "authority" point, the DA could well decide not to prosecute, For example, if some CSX official had purported to give the film crew permission (as suggested in some earlier posts), even if it wasn't in writing, and that authority was not unambigiuously withdrawn, the DA could decide he doesn't have "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence for a criminal case. The film company, in this situation, could still face civil liabilty for negligence.
Again, I don't know what actually happened. I suppose we'll all find out in due course.
Falcon48,
This is an excellent explanation of what I see as the connection to the possible existence of conflicting accounts of whether permission was given to the film company, as alluded to by Sheriff Carter. I think you have summed it up perfectly with your analysis of the consequences.
If the film company’s interpretation of CSX’s ultimate refusal of permission is influenced by a conflicting message from CSX, then that might compromise the criminal case against the film company.
I guess another possibility is that the report of the sheriff’s mention of “conflicting stories” was wrong. But I agree that we will find out in due course.
edblysard He just shows up for a few minutes, makes some noise, and then is ignored for the rest of his life!
He just shows up for a few minutes, makes some noise, and then is ignored for the rest of his life!
Psst: What about the rooster?
CShaveRR Spoiler alert for SJ: the egg came first.
Spoiler alert for SJ: the egg came first.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
zugmann EuclidNow this of course all of this is just a theory. I think it is quite plausible. Others are free to offer their own theory and claims of plausibility. I certainly would not assert that they are wrong and I am right. Aliens.
EuclidNow this of course all of this is just a theory. I think it is quite plausible. Others are free to offer their own theory and claims of plausibility. I certainly would not assert that they are wrong and I am right.
Aliens.
Aincent Aliens designed the 'dream sequence' and granted permission on flash paper.
Euclid: I am pleasantly surprised that you wrote an answer. I thank you for that.
I have a different perspective on the overview. I have always gotten the impression that the way anything with a fairly large legal bent such as this case is handled, the details are played very tightly. Media gets very little in the way of information and even sometimes confusing information. Law enforcement often doesn't even share with other divisions, let alone the media. Lawyers want their clients protected, ergo the oft-said "no comment", unless they think it will help their clients.
If this does go to court, as I suspect it probably will, lawyers and law enforcement will not want this to have been played out in the public media, dissected and autopsied before any legal proceedings.
I also have a way of predicting outcomes in my mind. I can, occasionally, come pretty close - if I am either able to actually watch reactions, listen carefully to the words of the actual people involved and even get to see the body language of those involved. I also admit to never reading a good mystery thriller until I have read the ending. That is the only time I can actually know for sure how things will turn out.
But I go back to the chicken and the egg. I get the feeling it isn't that you think you will get any information out of the forum to help you make this conclusion. I think it is more the fighting of the battle rather than the winning of the war.
But the bottom line in my mind is that you seem to enjoy stirring the pot and I enjoy trying to figure out why you do.
...
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
Mookie To Euclid: I am not going to get into the matter before the board in this thread, but I am intrigued. Your postings suggest to me that you possibly have figured out which came first: the chicken or the egg. And I mean that respectfully. Are you questioning (as a defense lawyer would do), playing devils advocate, enjoy this form of conversation as a hobby or all of the above. I rarely pay any attention to the back and forth, but my "hobby" is the study of the individuals posting. I get a sense that there is someone more complex behind all the rhetoric. Just curious. Mookie
To Euclid: I am not going to get into the matter before the board in this thread, but I am intrigued. Your postings suggest to me that you possibly have figured out which came first: the chicken or the egg. And I mean that respectfully.
Are you questioning (as a defense lawyer would do), playing devils advocate, enjoy this form of conversation as a hobby or all of the above. I rarely pay any attention to the back and forth, but my "hobby" is the study of the individuals posting. I get a sense that there is someone more complex behind all the rhetoric.
Just curious.
Mookie
Thanks for your comment. I am just interested in how these types of things come to be and play out. Questioning as a lawyer, playing devil’s advocate, and enjoyment are all part of it. I guess it’s my nature. In my mind, I always predict the probable outcome of everything. This story has intrigued me from the start because the news has raised so many questions and left them unanswered. So I read between the lines to look for the missing pieces. Initially, as I recall, the film crew was said to have permission, but then that was clarified to mean they had permission from Rayonier, but not from CSX. The role of Rayonier and the point of the film crew being on their property has never been clarified.
The news asked the film company president whether he had permission. He said, “That’s complicated.” Astoundingly, there was no follow up question to seek clarification of that bizarre answer. Reading between the lines, I would say the answer was a way of saying, “Maybe we did and maybe we didn’t. It all depends on what the meaning of is is.”
Eventually the media seemed to settle on the consensus that CSX had denied permission. Perhaps the answer, “That’s complicated” was just a way to dodge the question of permission. The consensus in all discussion seemed to settle on the certainty that someone in the film company will be prosecuted for the death of Ms. Jones. But now, out of the blue comes the sheriff saying that he will not prosecute and part of the reason is that the story is complicated because there are “conflicting stories” about whether the film company had permission.
Some have said that if they did not have written permission, they had no permission. I am not convinced that is true. Just because railroad companies give formal permission in writing does not mean that less formal permission carries no weight in terms of responsibility to the company if something goes wrong. And I do know for a fact that permission has been known to come from different individuals within railroad companies when it conflicted with the formal rules for granting such permission, or perhaps was granted by someone who had no authority to grant it. Nevertheless, once given, the grantee is in a different legal status than would be the case if he or she were on the property with no permission. Falcon48 reiterates that same point in an earlier post here.
But in any case, reading between the lines, I would not expect the sheriff to give any weight to a story about having permission if there was no evidence of that. And yet, he seems to be giving substantial weight to it, although he does not make it clear why the conflicting stories would be a reason to withhold prosecution. Once again, no follow-up questions from the news media on such an inviting point.
So I can only conclude that the film company has claimed that they did have permission, and have provided evidence for that claim. It could be in writing, or it could simply be identifying the name of the person who gave permission. I have no idea how much weight that permission will carry in light of the apparent fact that CSX formally denied permission.
Depending on the details of what was said back and forth in these permission discussions, I tend to think the film company will be seen as negligent to some extent at least. Certainly they did not have the proper permission which would have included an escort, safety officers, releases, insurance, etc. I would speculate that the sheriff sees this case as a hot potato, so he wants to kick it up to a higher level rather than risk losing it. He did say the conflicting stories make it complicated. Personally, I do not believe that the distance between Georgia and California is thwarting the investigation or movement toward a trial.
Now this of course all of this is just a theory. I think it is quite plausible. Others are free to offer their own theory and claims of plausibility. I certainly would not assert that they are wrong and I am right.
What makes you sure CSX is the one to be charged?
I would think the film crew would be charged.
Reckless endangerment, trespassing, so forth.
The only thing CSX is known to be guilty of is running trains on their tracks.
I am not real sure why you wish to weave these convoluted theories, but here is an even more plausible explanation….
The director decided the dream shot would be even better if it was shot on the bridge, not just with the bridge in the background.
He thought they could sneak it in without the railroad knowing, even though he had not been given permission to film on the tracks, maybe he even asked earlier and had been refused.
Trains make lots of noise, so he rationalized that they would hear the train if one came, in plenty of time.
Didn’t wrork out that way.
Now, the film crew and all are way out in Lotus land, the DA and Sherriff are in Georgia, everyone on the film crew has an attorney who is telling them to not say a word to any law enforcement official anywhere at any time, the Georgia bunch has to try to communicate with the Hollywood folks by phone and email, the distance make face to face follow up interviews very difficult, and no one from the film crew or production company plans on stepping foot anywhere over the Georgia border ever again, so its stalemate time.
You have been told over and over, in this thread, and the other one on this issue, that no one under the rank of senior trainmaster would give permission for anyone, for any reason, the foul or be allowed to occupy live track.
The reason is simple, if someone lower than that did give verbal permission, and something like this happened, that person would be responsible, would be fired, and sued, folded, twisted ,spindled and all that.
Every single Class 1 railroad, and every single railroad that follows the GCOR and Norac rule books have strict rules and policies and protocol about this, and strict rules about watchman/ flagmen, slow orders, track bulletins and all…that’s how we work, it is an normal everyday thing.
I have told you this, Mudchicken, Carl, Jeff ,Zug, Balt and many many others, all who do or did this for a living day in and day out have made the same basic statement.
You can apply any spin you choose, but simply put, if CSX had given permission, such permission would have come from a Senior Trainmaster or Operational Officer or higher up, and would have included written permission, dates, times, locations and also included a watchman and flagman on site.
By necessity railroads still work and function in the paper world, with copies to everyone that needs it, and quite a few who don’t.
The fact that the film crew and production company have yet to offer up their copy of such permission, no matter who it was issued by, lends itself to the belief that there is no such written permission.
If such a document existed, you can bet the bank the film crew/production company would have produced it, post haste.
Okay, now back to your regularly scheduled “Geraldo Report.”
They obviously did not have permission. You can indeed be passed from one person to another, none of whom will allow you on the property. Eventually, with luck, you might reach a person on the railroad who has the authority to arrange a shoot. He would require exact details of what was intended. At this point any scenario involving a bed on the tracks would be instantly refused as conveying a dangerous visual message. That would be bad enough; in this case they went further and went out onto a bridge.
Should the answer be a qualified yes, with a more acceptable script, then the paperwork begins, specifying liability (100% for the film crew), exact time and location limits to be used, purchase orders (maybe payment in advance) to cover costs of flag protection, use of the property, management time, etc. Perhaps a month later everything will be in order for the shooting to begin.
A "lower authority" might have looked the other way if the crew was merely straddling a perhaps poorly defined property line 50 of 100 feet away. That is very different from being set up on or close to a main line track. Any railroader would recognize the inherent danger to life, property, and even the trains themselves.
I regret to say that your "plausible explanation" is as plausible as the tooth fairy.
John
Having actual permission is NEVER COMPLICATED!
The only thing that gets complicated is trying to lie one's way out of not having permission to be where you were and having one of your crew die - that is complicated.
Murphy Siding Euclid Here is a plausible explanation of the conflicting stories about whether the film company had permission: The film crew received permission from someone from CSX to be on CSX property, but it was not from the highest authority. Later, a higher authority from CSX officially denied permission for the film crew to be on CSX property. In retropect, from the point of view of CSX, the position of the higher authority overrode the position of the lower authority, and therefore the film crew had no permission. CSX claims to have proof of that permission denial. However, if the CSX higher authority did not know at the time that the film crew had been given permission from the lower authority, they would not have clarified to the film crew that the lower permission was rescinded. Or maybe the higher authority was aware of the permission given by the lower authority, but just assumed that the film company would realize that the higher authority’s decision overrode the decision by the lower authority. Therefore, either way, the film crew might have just rationalized that they had permission from one part of CSX and were denied permission from another part; so, they simply chose to accept authority of the part of CSX that gave them what they had asked for; that being permission to be on CSX property. Why should they worry about which CSX authority was right and which one was wrong? How could they be expected to know? What if they had written permission, but it was written in invisible ink, and now they have nothing to show for it? That seems about as plausible. Either they have proof of written permission or they don't. I can't see where there's much room for in between those two options.
Euclid Here is a plausible explanation of the conflicting stories about whether the film company had permission: The film crew received permission from someone from CSX to be on CSX property, but it was not from the highest authority. Later, a higher authority from CSX officially denied permission for the film crew to be on CSX property. In retropect, from the point of view of CSX, the position of the higher authority overrode the position of the lower authority, and therefore the film crew had no permission. CSX claims to have proof of that permission denial. However, if the CSX higher authority did not know at the time that the film crew had been given permission from the lower authority, they would not have clarified to the film crew that the lower permission was rescinded. Or maybe the higher authority was aware of the permission given by the lower authority, but just assumed that the film company would realize that the higher authority’s decision overrode the decision by the lower authority. Therefore, either way, the film crew might have just rationalized that they had permission from one part of CSX and were denied permission from another part; so, they simply chose to accept authority of the part of CSX that gave them what they had asked for; that being permission to be on CSX property. Why should they worry about which CSX authority was right and which one was wrong? How could they be expected to know?
Here is a plausible explanation of the conflicting stories about whether the film company had permission:
The film crew received permission from someone from CSX to be on CSX property, but it was not from the highest authority. Later, a higher authority from CSX officially denied permission for the film crew to be on CSX property. In retropect, from the point of view of CSX, the position of the higher authority overrode the position of the lower authority, and therefore the film crew had no permission. CSX claims to have proof of that permission denial.
However, if the CSX higher authority did not know at the time that the film crew had been given permission from the lower authority, they would not have clarified to the film crew that the lower permission was rescinded. Or maybe the higher authority was aware of the permission given by the lower authority, but just assumed that the film company would realize that the higher authority’s decision overrode the decision by the lower authority.
Therefore, either way, the film crew might have just rationalized that they had permission from one part of CSX and were denied permission from another part; so, they simply chose to accept authority of the part of CSX that gave them what they had asked for; that being permission to be on CSX property. Why should they worry about which CSX authority was right and which one was wrong? How could they be expected to know?
I am not sure that I understand your point. I agree that either they had written permission or they did not. But when I suggested they may have gotten permission from a lower authority, I did not rule out the possibility that it was written permission. My only point is that they may have gotten permission at one level and been denied permission at another level.
I do know that you can call any railroad company with a question and be transferred from one person to another all day long. And every single one of them will tell you something different that the previous one. So I do not see this double response theory as being farfetched. It would perfectly explain the “conflicting stories” characterization by the sheriff.
And if there was a lower level permission, I would expect it to be in writing or otherwise verifiable because I don't think the sheriff would credit a claim of having permission without any evidence of that whatsoever. I don't think the sheriff would regard a claim of permission without evidence as being a "conflicting story."
Oh look, a Bucyrus/Euclid "but what if thread".......
Even if a "lower authority" at CSX gave them permission, there would have been a CSX flagman on site. The flagman would be on all the train crews orders, and each train going through the area would have to get permission from the flagman to before traversing the limits. They are present whenever a outside authority might need to foul the tracks. The fact that there was none tells more than your grasping at "what ifs".....
EuclidSo what happens if both the grant and the denial are both in writing?
Then heads will roll at the railroad, BUT...
If the film company had acknowledged receipt of the denial, they're still on the hook.
I'm sure the railroad has an established procedure for such operations. Unless an underling failed to pass the request to the appropriate level of management, I'd bet that said establish procedure was followed, assuming an actual request was made in the first place.
Euclid So what happens if both the grant and the denial are both in writing?
So what happens if both the grant and the denial are both in writing?
We sit back and let the courts figure it out.
BaltACDUnless you have 'permission' in writing - you have nothing! It is that complicated!
Well suppose the lower grant of permission and the higher denial of permission were both in writing, say by email. In my example, I did not mean to exclude that possibility. So what happens if both the grant and the denial are both in writing?
EuclidWhy should they worry about which CSX authority was right and which one was wrong?
All they have to do is produce that signed authorization and they'll be all set.
Without that, they got nothin'.
In the earlier thread it was mentioned that "someone" told them there wouldn't be any trains after such and such. Who that "someone" may have been is open for speculation at this point. Was it a local resident? An employee of the plant which property they did have permission be be on? An actual employee of the railroad?
Maybe they'd been shooting in the area for several days and thought they understood the "regular" traffic flow on the line.
Personally, I'm still betting on the film crew throwing caution to the winds so they can get "the shot."
Unless you have 'permission' in writing - you have nothing! It is that complicated!
zugmann Euclid Or perhaps the sheriff wants someone else to spend the money to put CSX on trial. Who?
Euclid Or perhaps the sheriff wants someone else to spend the money to put CSX on trial.
Or perhaps the sheriff wants someone else to spend the money to put CSX on trial.
Who?
tree68 For all we know, somebody wearing a CSX "gimme" cap told the crew it was OK in one way or another. Of course, you can get such hats just about anywhere, but...
For all we know, somebody wearing a CSX "gimme" cap told the crew it was OK in one way or another. Of course, you can get such hats just about anywhere, but...
EuclidThat suggests to me that the apparent claim by the film company of having permission has some merit beyond just their word.
Most likely a case of "he said / she said," if you know what I mean.
As Balt points out, without some form of written agreement, there was no official permission given.
Add to that the fact that under normal circumstances the railroad would likely have sent someone out to "flag" the location (and that no such person has so far emerged), and the moviemaker's case gets thinner by the minute.
All that said, until the final gavel falls we won't have the information we need to draw complete conclusions.
Possibly the film company was dumb enough to think the private property which they had permission to use INCLUDED THE TRACKS? And so by extension they thought the bridge would be safe to use?
...or perhaps pursuing criminal charges against a film company (that may be bringing revenue to the county), that suffered the loss of life of a young woman may be seen as "cold and cruel"?
Elections and all. (nobody roots for Goliath)
The sheriff cites the existence of conflicting stories as being unusual, and says that is part of the reason why he chooses not to prosecute. However, he does not explain the connection.
It seems like he is saying that the existence of conflicting stories weakens the case for prosecution. That suggests to me that the apparent claim by the film company of having permission has some merit beyond just their word.
When it comes to permission -
If it is NOT WRITTEN on a document on company letterhead and detailing the area involved and signed by a ranking company official (or the legal department) then one DOES NOT have permission.
I am not concluding that there is anything particularly unusual about the sheriff choosing not to press charges.
Here is the part that surprises me:
As far as I know, this is the first news report that suggests that there is an actual claim on the part of the film company that they did have permission from CSX to be on their property.
I would opine that things are being handled pretty much as any such case would be. Even with DWI cases, it goes to the DA (and possibly even a grand jury, if it's felony DWI). The police may arrest the perp, but if he/she can pay the bail (or if the judge releases them), they're back on the street.
I'm sure the sheriff has provided whatever info he has to the DA. Trespassing aside, most of the rest of the case isn't really within the sheriff's purview.
What comes to my mind is "proof beyond reasonable doubt", in that while the sheriff may not believe what the production company is saying, he may not think he has enough evidence to convince a jury. The DA may have a better feel for what instructions to pas along to the jury, and those can make or break a case.
Quite likely criminal charges will be laid as a result of the tragedy. Exactly which charges, and whether to charge more than one person, gets a little trickier. I'm not surprised that decision has been passed on to the legal experts in the DA's office. Too serious a charge might result in acquittal, but on the other hand they don't want to just give a slap on the wrist.
Actually, the Sherriff is playing it smart.
If his office issues charges, then his department bears the expense of investigating, collecting evidence, and all that….allowing the DA’s office to do so dumps the cost of the investigation, subpoenas and getting witnesses back from California on their budget, not his.
If nothing comes of it, then the DA “wasted” taxpayer’s money, not him.
Euclid Here is the latest news about the investigation of this accident. http://variety.com/2014/film/news/midnight-rider-investigation-sheriff-will-leave-question-of-criminal-charges-to-d-a-1201157010/# From the article:Carter [the sheriff] said that one of the reasons that they are not pursuing their own criminal charges is the unusual nature of the incident, including “conflicting stories” of whether the production had permission to be on the tracks. Conflicting stories? One widely reported story is that CSX had not given permission to the film crew to be on the tracks. CSX even claims to have an email proving that they declined permission. What is the story that conflicts with that? I have yet to hear one.
Here is the latest news about the investigation of this accident.
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/midnight-rider-investigation-sheriff-will-leave-question-of-criminal-charges-to-d-a-1201157010/#
From the article:Carter [the sheriff] said that one of the reasons that they are not pursuing their own criminal charges is the unusual nature of the incident, including “conflicting stories” of whether the production had permission to be on the tracks.
Conflicting stories? One widely reported story is that CSX had not given permission to the film crew to be on the tracks. CSX even claims to have an email proving that they declined permission. What is the story that conflicts with that? I have yet to hear one.
Linked here is the Original Forum Thread from 21 Feb 2014
@ http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/227732.aspx?sort=ASC&pi332=1 [Film Crew Deaths]
Seems as if the whole episode is being swept under the rug. IMHO Maybe since several months have past the details are "foggier" ?
I agree, Euclid. The article seems to gloss over the facts.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.