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!
Norm
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.”
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.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...
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.....?????
23 17 46 11
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?
Jeff
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.