The best defense is a strong offense. Go get them CSX!
Mac
What good does it do for CSX to sue the film company? Think of it as a “shot across the box” to anyone considering trespassing on CSX property. CSX is VERY sensitive and intolerant of trespassing on their lines, and I don’t blame them.
Maybe they won’t make any money, but they will make the point.
I highly doubt CSX is looking for money. It would be logical to assume they want to make a point to others who would trespass for a similar reason.
If CSX can bankrupt both film company and individuals that would put the fear of ruin into future productions ? Also might black list the producers as well ?
Anything CSX does, or doesn’t do, will “look bad in the eyes of outsiders”.
In just about every language on earth, no means no…simple, two letters, one syllable.
They we told no, twice, in writing both times, and went ahead and trespassed any way, causing CSX harm and the death of one of their own employees along with injuries to other of their employees, not to mention physiological injury to a CSX crew.
Their actions forced CSX to expend money not only on inspecting the train, bridge and tracks, (not cheap at all) but delayed delivery of a stack train that most likely had an on time guarentee that was lost, and their actions also forced CSX to incure legal cost in upcoming litigation
CSX has the legal right to recoup their expenses and damages caused by the trespassers, and most likely punitive damages as well.
This will send a clear message to not only film crews, but others that may choose to trespass, that CSX will pursue legal action if the trespassers are caught…
I seem to recall in the graffiti thread you were all for railroads pursuing and prosecuting any trespasser.
Here is the absolute example of the liability issue you backed Jim Norton on fully, so why do you care how outsiders see CSX over this?
This is no longer a railroad thing, it’s now a legal thing.
The VP-Law of CSX is now calling the shots for them. And they either have to trust his/her advice or get a different VP-Law. His/her job is to protect the railroad to the best of his/her ability.
CSX has to fight the parent’s legal action. They can’t just roll over. And they’ve got to be aggressive in their actions least they get run over in court.
Let’s assume, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the VP-Law for CSX knows what he/she is doing.
A Canadian infantry regiment’s unofficial motto, or slogan more accurately, is, “Never pass a fault.” CSX had little choice but to stop at this one.
I feel it would be irresponsible of CSX to not take an overt legal stance over this intrusion on their corporation. That is what it was, a lethal and unnecessary intrusion. While many complain that the Americans, as a population, are overly litigious, this instance is one that brings a loud acclamation IMO.
In addition to never passing a fault, one in a role of leadership should also set an example for others to emulate. It needn’t be punitive in all cases, but I think a law suit could be corrective to a large extent, and also provide a useful example…a ‘teaching point’. If it isn’t trespass on controlled crossings, it’s trespass on bridges from which there is little escape, except to jump.
Keep on teaching.
I would not jump to any conclusions about who will win their suit. It may look obvious, but skilled lawyers can turn that upside down. About ten years ago, there was a high profile legal case about a grade crossing accident in Anoka, MN on the BNSF.
It looked like a slam dunk for the railroad, but then the plaintiff lawyers razzle-dazzled the court with confusing issues of data handling and convinced them that BNSF was being dishonest. Nobody could prove whether the crossing protection worked or not, but since the court had been led to distrust BSNF, it was unable to be convinced that BNSF was right in asserting that the protection worked.
Ed: The graffiti trespassers if caught, should be prosecuted under jurisdictional, criminal law by the state. Private tort litigation to recover some financial damages when it was a CSX locomotive that killed the girl looks heartless and greedy. I understand the desire to “send a message” to photographers, film companies, etc. “Don’t trespass” but there are better ways to do so without looking like a greedy, heartless company. In other words, don’t muddy the message. I would hope CSX makes some positive gestures in memory of the girl who was killed.
Optics are very important for a business because public opinion does matter. Why do you think the railroads (not yours since it probably doesn’t need to, invisible) spend millions on commercials, ads and other public messaging? To say “anything CSX does, or doesn’t do, will ‘look bad in the eyes of outsiders’” is downright silly. Impression management and mitigating potentially bad PR is the job of a good in-house department or outside consultant. A siege mentality of the railroads vs John Q Public, NIMBYs, etc. is not a very good business practice. Sometimes it’s smarter to reverse the old saying “I’d rather be right than be elected.”
Sorry schlimm but that’s faulty logic. It’s like saying the knife was guilty of the stabbing rather than the person wielding it. CSX and the train crew were additional victims. The locomotive was the inanimate knife in this instance. It will be shown in court that the film company is the guilty party.
Where’s the faulty logic? I said CSX was not to blame, legally. This is not about that. It is about public image. For the CSX to portray itself as victims is pathetic and laughable. I can imagine some comedy spot (Jon Stewart?) showing a CSX locomotive side-by-side with a body or wrecked auto alongside the tracks and the caption, “Who’s the victim?”
This article …
Has this line in it …
CSX also said 27-year-old Jones was partly to blame for her own death because she “failed to exercise ordinary and responsible care for her own safety.”
Not going to win any PR points, but clearly trying to establish blame with the film crew.
I don’t think the CSX countersuit has anything to do with spanking the trespassers and making an example out of them. I think it is a critical and essential part of the CSX defense against the suit against them. And I agree that their may be some risk in the optics of suing the relatives of the deceased.
Well, there you go. Obviously the CSX cost-cutters and lawyers have a lot more clout internally than the marketing and PR departments. No wonder CSX has the worst reputation of the major railroads.
According to whom?
Deleted
It is ease to blame the film company executives, but Sarah Jones was working as an employee and was assured that permission had been granted and being on the bridge was safe. I am amazed that CSX would be so ham-handed as to blame her in public. That is dense.
Most likely, John Snow the ex-CEO that tried everything he knew how to take the company down during his tenure until he became the Secretary of the Treasury and stuffed his own treasury with his ‘Golden Parachute’ when he departed CSX - leaving it worse than he found it. He can’t stand that all his policies have been undone and the company is prospering and restoring some of the facilities he closed.
Talk to folks outside the industry. Most either 1. never heard of it, 2. think it’s a cleaning product or 3. regard it as a cheap, backward-thinking and rundown railroad. Take your pick.
Oh, “experts”…
BTW, you might want to talk to more people.
http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/most-admired/2012/snapshots/2069.html
“CSX Corporation CSX, -0.08%today announced that it has been named one of the World’s Most Admired Companies in 2014, according to a survey published by FORTUNE Magazine.”
“The World’s Most Admired Companies list is voted on by executives, directors and analysts across all industries.”
FYI, I put the word ALL in bold. No doubt that includes people “outside the industry”