Amen, brother.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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?
Ed,
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.
"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.
Norm
Norm,
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.
Ed, once again you are letting reason stand in the way of speculation and conjecture based on rumor and hearsay.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington 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.
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….
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.
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,
I have read paragraph 76 and understand what it says. What is your point in posting it at this time?
On and around sounds pretty specific to me, the on part especially.
23 17 46 11
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?"
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD
I am in favor of letting the court(s) decide the matter. Eleven pages of discussion already?
Johnny
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
Yes, but...
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...
Euclid,
Considering you are unwilling to accept other viewpoints I am done discussing the matter with you.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
Thanks guys. It’s nice to have you all back together again.
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
"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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.