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".
23 17 46 11
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.
Norm
-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.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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...
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.