"The McKean County district attorney is considering filing criminal
negligence charges in the June 30 Norfolk Southern Railroad train
derailment that polluted more than 30 miles of the state’s best trout
streams and killed thousands of fish.
“The southbound freight was traveling more than 50 miles over the speed
limit on its way down one of the state’s steepest stretches of track
when 31 cars of the 44-car train derailed along Sinnemahoning-Portage
Creek, near the town of Gardeau.”
I can understand the desire to get reimbursed for damages caused by the derailment, but criminal charges??? [?]
And I thought that criminal charges had to be filed against a person or persons, not a corporation. I think that it would be awfully tough to prove criminal negligence.
A corporation is legally considered a person - so yes, you can bring criminal charges against a corporation. The difference is while you can put a person in jail, you can’t put a corporation in jail - so its fines only.
Many actions can be brought as criminal actions or civil actions (anti-trust laws are one example). The difference is the level of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal versus perpondence of the evidence in civil. Negligence can be the action for many criminal cases - you generally have to prove gross negligence or recklessness - reckless driving, for example, is a criminal action. Manslaughter is causing the death of another through gross negligence.
Since you can’t send a corporation to jail, what would be the point of criminal charges in a case like this? Wouldn’t you be more likely to recover all damages just by filing a regular civil suit?
There is nothing saying you can’t file both - remember O.J. (acquitted criminally, then found liable in a civil case) - maybe more incentive to settle with criminal charges (criminal fines can be very large, plus they’d still have to pay restitution).
You guys have missed the boat (literally) on this one. Remember the Exxon Valdez?
They found the captain to be criminally negligent for the (ahem) “recklessness”
So, clearly, the criminal aspect of these charges might be hung upon operational or even corporate types.
Personally, I think that if these railroads expect to never be sued, then they should have their derailments in areas where the consequences are not so likely to be severe. (yes, that is an intentional corruption of the old saw “If homeowners don’t want to hear train horns, then they should never have bought houses so close to the track” )
How it relates is in answering to you how or why “criminal charges” might be employed.
Since the train was speeding excessively, (PERHAPS) that is going to be used as some indication of wanton disregard for the immediate surroundings of the train? (hey, you asked, I’m merely speculating trying to satisfy your curiousity)
Since the whole story is not yet out, I’m afraid that speculation is about as good as we are gonna do, for now.
The establishment of criminal wrong doing will surely pave the way to make civil penalties easier to collect, since juries are typically biased against criminals and their acts.
What I question is the statement, “50 miles per hour over the speed limit.”
What is the speed limit on that stretch of track?
How fast was the train traveling at the instant of derailment?
Why?
If the train was a runaway, I can just barely believe this. Otherwise, ???
Or did somebody leave a comma out of the sentence between, “hour,” and, “over” - possibly for dramatic effect. 50 in a 45 zone is a ho-hum, while, “50 … over,” brings mental pictures of somebody careening down the Penn Turnpike at NASCAR speeds.
Well, I doubt that the pending criminal charges will be filed against the corporation.
The similarities to the exxon valdez are more than just remote coincidence.
In both examples, You have a large corporation transporting a hazard through environmentally sensitive areas. You have staff that are violating the rules of safe operation, and you have a mishap that results in the discharge of said hazard into the environment, causing widespread destruction.
Why the engineer was speeding JUST MIGHT be at the root cause of the criminal charges . We’ll just have to wait and see.
Won’t we? [zzz]
Yeah I know {snit rant} -" Here we were having a perfectly perfect discussion about trains, and then here AG goes with his chronic inability to stay on topic, bringing up boats…etc etc yada yada"-{/snit rant}
The track speed was 15MPH, the press here has said the engine was going 73MPH at the time of derailment. I can’t imagine any engineer/conductor taking a train over Keating Summit at 73mph. By the way the DA involved announced his bid for reelection yesterday.
In that part of the state, yes it was a major tourist attraction. I’m not a fisherman, but it was apparentely one of the few “virgin” trout streams in PA.
The train was speeding because the Engineer pissed away his air and the train ran away, he was not experienced enough to be operating over a line with grades that steep, the train was a detour train. The NS has solved the problem and it is unlikely to happen again, they closed the line, and are likely to abandon it.
Thanks, I must have read past that part in the ’ linked to’ story. [|)]
Even if that is proven in the official investigation (which is not to be released until later this week) you’ve still got an engineer handling a dangerous train in an area he has not qualified in. Depending upon who decided he should try to go through anyway, and how that decision was made, there might be negligence on behalf of his supervisor.
And you konow as well as I that IF the post incident medical exam shows even a trace of alky in the engineer’s system, the fact that it was just a little bit, will matter not in the final call.
Drip, drip, drip…story is neither a surprise nor a revelation, however it is as important to know about and consider as part of a larger whole. In my neck of this great country, several muncipalities, the state and even the federal government are in the midst of a river water rights battle for potable domestic water usage…thats right…river water…due to growth and a finite resource…In our county in particular, they have been in violation of EPA drinking water standards and a “work out” plan for 5 years.It’s contaminated with agricultural fertlizer. The EPA standards like the FDA are a joke anyway. We buy bottled water. This is not intellectual posturing on my part or being a policy wonk…its real. So…with that in mind, I understand the severity, whether its ducks or bugs etc that get immediately zapped…it all goes into the watershed and ground…streams to rivers…and when your kids, wife or grandchildren cannot drink water out of a d—m tap…you gain a very viseral perspective. Whoever is responsible should be sat down a offered a very generous glass of water…here you go…join our club.
Slightly OT…not all contamination comes from natural sources…My wife developed severe skin rashes, open sores, severe itching, eyes swelling, migranes. Went to allergists, dermatology experts, endocrinologists, etc. So…no avail…getting worse…can’t sleep. I decided nobody knew what they were talking about. Googled her symptoms. Brought up sucralose otherwise known as Splenda…maufacturer claims no reactions…a website full of them. Stopped intake of same…four weeks later.after a year of misery…cured. Coincidence? Not.