As I predicted, the truck driver of the float in the Midland, TX grade crossing collision on 11/15/12, will NOT be charged for passing activated crossing signals, which resulted in four deaths, and injured ten other people. Link to story:
“The lawsuit claims the railroad was negligent in 28 ways, including failing to provide reasonable and timely audible and visual warning of the approaching train and failure to provide a safe railroad crossing. It also says the train did not brake or otherwise attempt to slow and the railroad hadn’t fixed what it claims are hazardous conditions posed by the road grade.”
This case is unusual to say the least. Has there ever been a case before where a truck carrying disabled veterans was hit by a train? I don’t know of any.
I suspect UP’s legal department people will look at this as a business decision. If the lawyers think they’ve got a pretty good “open-and-shut” case they can put away with little fuss, they’ll fight it. If it looks like it could drag on indefinately and a lot of cost, they’ll settle quickly and quietly.
Should be “Stop for Trains OR ELSE” - or Stop or DIE" That gets the real message across better. (I’m glad you avoided the skull-and-crossbones trope, as it would convey the idea that the railroad is the danger…)
Where was that famous crossing, if I remember correctly in the South, that was covered a few years ago: the one with the big neon DEATH over the top? Now, rebuilding THAT would be a benefit where buffoons and yahoos lurk…
Pathetic, simply pathetic. You’d think that if any demographic of the population might be more inclined to accept responsibility for their own actions, it would be Veterans.
Zardoz, let me tell you something, even if it’s considered sacriledge to say it nowadays. Just because a guy or gal’s worn a uniform doesn’t make him/her a saint. Take it from an old Marine. Some are, some aren’t, some were, but aren’t anymore. We’re like everyone else.
I suspect you have lived in America pretty much all of your life. When many people think about suing for something the first question is “How deep are his pockets.” The Union Pacific has deep pockets. That is why the lawsuit was filed.
Two different kinds of lawyers involved here - prosecutor(s) in the first, private tort (“ambulance-chaser”) types in the second, with vastly different economic interests in the outcome (nil in the first, huge in the second). As the sayings go: “Follow the money !”; and, “What you reward, you’ll usually get more of”. [sigh]
Guarantee you that the plaintiff veterans’ lawyers see no inconsistency or conflict in their action. Dispassionately and objectively, on the face of it they’re right too - exonerating the truck driver says nothing directly about the railroad’s responsibility one way or the other; and then indirectly as well, because if the truck driver wasn’t at fault, then who else is around that might be ? Kind of perverse “last man standing” or “musical chairs” routine . . .
That would be very unwise. It would not serve their own best interests to break with historical settlements or court decisions in similar instances because each time they give ground, they invite a wider portion of the wedge in leverage against them legally. If the engineer had blown the crossing as policies and laws prescribe, if the crossing were kept in the proper engineering configuration, both physically and in the way of signalling/warning, and if the subsequent protocols for an eventual collision, or one that had already just taken place, were followed by the train crew, it’s just an unfortunate accident. Inviting any portion of culpability is something a legal entity does at its peril when it isn’t justified, and almost never when it is justified.
As has been mentioned, suing the railroad and charging the driver are two entirely different things. The only thing they have in common in this case is their wrongheadedness. I took the lawsuit to be a forgone conclusion, but it does raise this question: Is a lawsuit against the railroad an inevitable response in the case of every single crossing crash that results in a fatality or serious injury? Or is it only inevitable with high profile cases?
Sure the U.P. can fight this with their competent lawyers, but even though justice, logic, fairness, and common sense are all on U.P.’s side; there is no guarantee they will win. It is hard to win when you are fighting the headwinds of universal public opinion. The biggest challenge will be to convince the jury that the railroad’s increase of the train speed limit did not require a corresponding increase in the warning time, even though the two are unrelated.
Looking at this incident prior to this latest news, it seemed impossible that they would charge the float driver, and yet it seemed impossible that they could withhold charges. But, I am convinced that profiling enters into every decision as to whether or not to charge a driver for a driving offense. They have no qualms about writing a $175 seat belt ticket for one person not wearing the belt, while letting the next offender off with a warning. I wonder if a veteran has ever gotten a seatbelt ticket.
Both the U.P. and the NTSB have made statements that the driver broke the law. I wonder if they will come out and walk that back in the face of public criticism.
Whatever the final outcome and blame, the accident is a public relations nightmare for the UP. A train killing a group of veterans, some disabled in their service, while in a parade? Running commercials (UP, NS, CSX) with “talking trains” and other gems won’t undue the damage here.
Of course this is profiling. If that was just Joe Blow and his work truck - he would have been charged, and any lawsuits probably would have had little traction.
But since this country has a hard time separating fact from emotion, UP has an uphill battle on this one. There is no way to “win”.
