Listed as a item in the News Wire.
NS has filed legal suit against the Train & Engine crew this is alledged to have run a stop signal when involved in the head on collision in Kentucky a couple of months ago.
This is the first time I have heard of a crew being sued in a court of law for their actions on the railroad by their employer.
Can this even be done under that Railway Labor Act? Does it violate some provision of the employee's craft labor contracts.
I guess we are moving back into the world of Wild West 'Justice'.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I had neveer heard of such before; ia this the new way to enforce safe operation practices?
Johnny
Maybe crews will need to carry liability insurance to cover this sort of case.
I'd be interested in knowing whether there is a precedent for this, or if they are trying to set one.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I believe the BN sued a train crew member(s) back in the 1980s. As I recall, it was a rear end collision. I don't remember the outcome.
Jeff
Was it posted else where that this engineer made this same red signal over run mistake at the location in the past ? That may be NS' rational ? Also has conductor been involved in any previous signal over runs ?
It seems to me that if railroad crews are held legally liable for their competence on duty, it amounts to a very large reduction in their pay. Certainly, they would need their own performance liability insurance to keep them out of bankruptcy should they cause a collision. The premiums on such an insurance policy would significantly reduce their effective income in wages, so the details of employment compensation will have to change.
Where these changes lead is in the direction of train crews being independent contractors instead of direct employees. Labor unions would no longer be needed. One of the major new players would be the IRS because they have a keen interest in the distinction between regular employees and independent contractors. A presumed employee begins to look like an independent contractor if they are to assume the liability of their mistakes by being forced to carry contractor liability insurance.
As this is carried further, railroads will pay train crews as independent contractors who will competitively bid on the business of running trains.
I am afraid that will prevent pep[e from,wanting to be train crews. If you have to carry your own libility insurance at a high premium and worry about being sued for every little thing that you do. You would not have the unions (as much I dislike them) to provide legal help in case you are sued.
In situations like this, wouldn't the sue-er usually include the sue-ee's employer as well in the lawsuit, based on the idea that the employer should have trained the employee better, and based on the idea that the employer has deeper pockets?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding In situations like this, wouldn't the sue-er usually include the sue-ee's employer as well in the lawsuit, based on the idea that the employer should have trained the employee better, and based on the idea that the employer has deeper pockets?
Alas, that would require NS to sue NS...
The idea that the railroad should have better trained the engineer, however, raises the possibility that they could also go after others in his/her chain of command for failure to properly identify and respond to what may be adjudged to be a known problem.
At some point, a line will have to be drawn, or that chain will reach well up into the company and the company will, indeed, be suing itself.
I doubt that the intent is to recover any damages from the employees. It's most likely a posturing move, related to how the other litigation is going to stack up.
Might be intended to forced the employee to testify, when they otherwise might plead the 5th. Or, perhaps their post accident drug screen turned up something that the other side is expected to make a big deal about? If the latter is the case it's usually desireable to have the employee have their own legal counsel seperate from the umbrella team defending the employer
Wow, can't think the crew has those kinds of $$$ sitting around to buy two locomotives and cover the cost of damage. Unless, all train crews are requied to carry professional libabiliy insurance? Should this become a common practice to recover damages in any kind of work incident, who would be will to put their personal assests on the line every day? Maybe we will see each employee incorporate themselfs as a LLC in order for protection? Yikes, me think would rather drive a truck where one can have insurance. (On this point a few years ago a tanker truck overturned in Harrisburg PA on the intersate and distroyed two bridges at a cost of $ 10 M, tanker company was insured to $ 1 M, so there is still risk.)
Goodbye 'middle class' employment opportunities
I suspect this is a ploy by NS to shift responsibility directly to the employees rather than the company that employed those employee who in performance of their duties were agents of the company.
Personnaly, I don't believe the law permits a company to shift responsibility to the agents that the company employed in the service of the company.
I suspect there is some fresh out of law shool 'shyster' that thinks he can pull it off, right up until the verdict goes against NS and the shyster is fired by NS.
As I have said in another thread, this may open the discussion of crew fatigue and how the unions, company and crews need to face the fact that crews are falling asleep and missing signals. The fact is that the crew was not attentive. Either the crew doesn't care or is sleeping on duty.
Let the personal attacks begin, but hopefully some good will come out of putting the problem out in the open.
This isn’t new.
I remember reading about a Frisco wreck in Oklahoma (I was reading the report circa 1975) where a crew had passed a timetable designated meet point. There were two timetable scheduled freights and they were to meet and pass at a specific location per the schedule. One crew (four men with caboose) just went on by that location somewhat ahead of time.
The resulting collision produced injuries but fortunately no fatalities.
According to railway labor law, an injured employee sues the company for compensation. Of course, if the employee can sue the company the company can sue the employee. (I don’t believe this is a good way to handle employee injuries, and it’s not practiced in other industries, but it’s the law. Railway employees have strongly defended this system. And they probably could negotiate a different system if they wanted one. But right now, it’s the law and the workers seem to support it as is.)
So, the employees injured in the NS wreck are going to sue the railroad company for compensation. Even if the wreck was their fault. So the NS, knowing this, files suit against the employees ahead of the employees’ legal action against the railroad.
Again, I do not think this is a good way to do things. But I’m not out there operating trains.
In the Frisco wreck both sides were awarded damages. The at fault injured employees were awarded something like $50,000 for their injuries. The railroad was awarded millions of dollars from the employees for its incurred damages. Of course, there was no way to collect all that money from the crew members.
As I said, this is nothing new. The lawyers do get paid well.
petitnj As I have said in another thread, this may open the discussion of crew fatigue and how the unions, company and crews need to face the fact that crews are falling asleep and missing signals. The fact is that the crew was not attentive. Either the crew doesn't care or is sleeping on duty. Let the personal attacks begin, but hopefully some good will come out of putting the problem out in the open.
Why would we do that when the Nazi Southern is coming up with creative ways to punish crews even more?
Remember this is the same railroad that tried to eliminate toilets on locomotives, in favour of employees going in garbage bags instead.
I imagine the crew has already been fired, and even if they were at fault they are still human beings with families who are going through a very difficult time right now. I know the litigation is a two-way street but this is not the right way for NS to handle these things.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.