http://www.oaoa.com/news/article_7e185f6c-b23c-11e4-938a-8f9c5fc6e8e5.html
Is the arugment the train crew failed to take proper action during the time it took to say these words? That is how the news item reads for me.
I would opine that the “basis” for the suit is that the crew didn’t get the train stopped before the crossing, therefore must have done something wrong… [^o)]
I would also opine that,since we don’t know who uttered the words that perhaps it was the conductor, speaking to the engineer, who was already taking appropriate action.
It’s a shame that the whole accident happened, but even more shameful that they (attorney’s and media) are trying to blame the train crew. They are not the ones who drove a parade float onto active railroad tracks ignoring a crossing signal clearly indicating a train was approaching… (I recall something about a police squad car dash-camera showing that the signals were flashing before the truck started across, and in plenty of time to a avoid the accident under normal operating conditions. A stupid driver stopping a parade float on the tracks is anything but normal.) Where is the attorney’s suit against the city parade planners, or the truck driver, or against anyone other than the RR that was not guilty of anything other than doing their daily job, running trains? The parade planners never even got city approval for that route, let alone never did their due diligence in informing the RR of said parade… This whole thing, tragically, would have been avoided had they done their jobs and gotten said approval and informed the RR of their plans. Then, they would have either had a chance to hold back the train short of town, or at least warned the crew of it so they were slow enough to do something about the problem. And the complaint that someone on the train called them an idiot? Easy. That guy was an idiot for driving onto th tracks with a parade float! Actually, the crew could have been a whole lot more “colorful” than just idiot… Let’s all place the blame where it really belongs here, not on the one with the deepest pockets… Typical sleezy attempt to get someone money for something that happened, instead of seekin justice over it. Money will not bring back their loved ones, or help the train crew though their traumatic experience of killing multiple people when they had zero control over the situation. For the attorney’s to then try to blame them for it is just flat out wrong.
Typical shysterism. Sue the ‘deep pocket’ instead of those that are actually responsible for causing the incident.
Thought is was ripe that the plaintiff lawyers did not want to be named in the final judgement.
I wonder: did the families of the men who died call on the “lawyer(s)”, or did the “lawyer(s)” call on the families?
If the “lawyer(s)” began the suit, they should be disbarred for being unable to think.
It’s not entirely over because the appeals court could decide for a retrial.
http://www.mrt.com/news/article_ea958166-afb1-11e4-9758-1325d2983868.html
Deg,
Oh, I’m sure someone, either the lawyers or the families thought, something along the lines of “show me the money”. It’s just that they thought wrong.
At least the judge was thinking more clearly.
I am not sure if I understand the point here, but this is how I interpret it:
The plaintiff’s attorney contends that the train crew was distracted. He bases that contention on the fact that the engineer said “Look at that idiot.” The engineer was referring to the first float which made it across okay. It was the second float that got hit by the train.
So by referring to the first float driver as “that idiot,” it shows that the engineer was paying close attention to the first float, and therefore, could not have been paying attention to the second float.
Is that the correct interpretation of the lawyer’s legal theory?
I view the plaintiff lawyers theory as throwing a Hail Mary pass and hoping for a pass interference call - without ever expecting to have the pass completed or even having a receiver in the same zip code as the ball, and then hoping for his QB to get tackled after the pass was released when no defender was within 10 yards of the QB.
All at $500 per hour.
All too often, plaintiffs (or their lawyers) go after the deep pockets - in this case, UP.
And all too often, said deep pocket simply settles since it’s cheaper than going to trial.
In this case, UP felt they had the advantage and fought the claim. And won.
Of course, the plaintiffs (or their attorneys) will appeal. Hopefully said appeal will be summarily dismissed.
I’m certainly sorry for the loss of their loved ones, as are all involved.
26 of 43 did settle …
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/01/16/26-settle-suit-in-2012-texas-veterans-parade-crash-that-killed-4/
Discussion of the warning time was not allowed, I guess. Perhaps it would be in a retrial.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Midland-warning-seen-as-too-brief-4074242.php
Perhaps the lawyers think that because the first float crossed the tracks, the train crew should have expected more floats and stopped the train?
The Brits have the solution: If you sue and loose you pay the other parties total costs of the litigation.
The Judge, probably also, banned any conversations about the Engineer or Conductor not steering the train out of the crossing to avoid the collision??? [X-)]
Amen. If that was the case and someone sued me on some frivolous (or otherwise baseless) matter, I’d hire the most expensive lawyer I could. Could come back and bite me, but they’d certainly feel the sting when they lost.
It would put an end to folks who are serial “suers.” Like the lady who sued over a basketball hoop (and the resultant dribbling of the ball) several houses from hers - and won. It was one of many suits she initiated, most of which simply settled. She was making pretty good money on the racket…
That’s not to say that people who sue never have legitimate cases (oftimes they do), but I think that if one was to try to file a loser of a case, their lawyer might suggest what they stood to lose if they lost.
Excerpt from “Plaintiffs’ Original Petition…”
http://extras.mysanantonio.com/pdf/TrainWreck_Lawsuit_Petition.pdf
The occurrence described in this petition is a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Railroad:
a. In failing to provide a reasonable and timely audible warning of an approaching train;
b. In failing to provide a reasonable and timely visual warning of an approaching train;
c. In failing to provide a safe railroad crossing;
d. In failing to apply the brakes or otherwise slow the train;
e. In failing to keep a proper lookout;
f. In failing to remedy the hazardous conditions posed by this grade crossing that existed for an extended period of time;
g. In routinely ignoring the hazardous conditions posed by this grade crossing;
h. In failing to protect the crossing by issuing a slow order for rail traffic;
i. In failing to recognize that
The lawyers who wrote that should be stripped of every diploma that was given to them, and disbarred for lack of evidence that they had any education.