Several instances where RR lost despite common sense on its side. Enola yard railfan tresspassing on CR property got clipped despite all kinds of warning; RR paid. Drunk driver goes around a line of cars stopped at occupied grade crossing with lights, bells, gates, trainman flagging on the crossing, goes under the train peeling the roof off car and lnot a scratch on him, gets DUI ticket, sues the railroad and wins. There are more stories like that…we commonly refer to them as “The hot coffee in the lap vs Mc Donald’s” legal awards.
what has not been mentioned is that this is a long stretch of straight right of way & the engineer should have seen her a long way off & applied his brakes, but he was reading his favorite novel or listening to HIS Ipod. FEC will probably lose out on this case. This is also a triple rail line & FEC are going to have to rip up one track, erect a three foot fence and install a bike & jogging path along the removed track.
The blackbox tapes from the eng involved would most likely have been downloaded and reviewed by an FEC officer. If there were something that would show up like not following the correct speed on that section of trk, not complying w/ the horn rule then yes the both the engr & condr will be in hot water. The carrier also has the right to do a check to see if any crew members were using their cell phones at the time of the accident. Again, hot water for any train crew in a situtation like this. And hopefully no one was listening to their ipod at the time either. Any of these conditions could hamper the rr to a degree on this case, but not totally.
You know this to be a fact, do you?
In the unlikely event you ever find yourself in charge of a train, know this - you don’t make a brake application every time you see someone who may or may not cross your path.
Mark.
Can I get an amen on this !
UP sends an officer out and tickets anybody walking on their property…
Dont cross their tracks anywhere but a street Xing in Ft Worth,Tx…
It is true that if any crewmembers admitted to having been negligently distracted when the woman was hit, it will harm the railroad’s defense.
However, a much greater harm to that defense may have been done by members of that crew or of other crews if they were aware that the public had established a frequently used crossing at that one particular point, and yet did not pass this information up to their supervisors. Or if the supervisors had learned of the frequently used crossing and did nothing to eliminate its use, then they will have harmed the railroad’s defense. In this specific aspect, the fact that the crossing was illegal and amounted to trespass is beside the point.
The report stated she was crossing the tracks which means the jogger you see running along the road next to the tracks (or alongside the tracks) may suddenly change direction and begin crossing right in front of you before you can effect the trains speed, all the engineer may have been able to do was put it in emergency stop and lay on the horn and hope the moron looks your way before they get tagged.
Based one the behavior of joggers I have seen here, looking around does not help generate the myopic groove joggers delve to get into, I’ve seen joggers run into major intersections without even looking. Thats what I think happened here. Didnt even look up, and was wondering what that dam noise spoiling her groove was in her earplugs just before the world went upside down.
Exactly right on both counts (add in also if there was any deficiency in the locomotive or the required inspections were not done as another source of liability for the railroad as well). Its rather pointless to point this out though. While nothing is more annoying to me than non-attorneys who have little or no understanding of how the legal system actually operates commenting about a pending legal case based on a newspaper article or a TV report, it is a waste of time to try to explain concepts such as “attractive nuisance” or “comparative negligence.”
One time only the general rules of commenting on personal injury (tort) law involving railroads
- Most states use comparative risk (a few such as my state, Virginia, still use common law contributory negligence). Comparative risk actually originated in use with the Federal Employees Liability Act (FELA) as a way to get rid of inputed contributory negligence and the common servant rule which made it almost impossible for any railroad employees to collect against their employers. Thus, with the vast majority of railroad injuries comparative negligence will be used. If you do not know what comparative negl
I am well aware of the black boxes I should have mentioned in my post that I was being facetious.
Another would be when an idiot jogs into the path of a moving train. But then, if you deliberately do that, what follows is not an accident.
The train crew in this incident are blameworthy how?
The train crew are being sued. Are they also to be regarded as a large corporation?
Mark.
[quote user=“penncentral2002”]
Exactly right on both counts (add in also if there was any deficiency in the locomotive or the required inspections were not done as another source of liability for the railroad as well). Its rather pointless to point this out though. While nothing is more annoying to me than non-attorneys who have little or no understanding of how the legal system actually operates commenting about a pending legal case based on a newspaper article or a TV report, it is a waste of time to try to explain concepts such as “attractive nuisance” or “comparative negligence.”
One time only the general rules of commenting on personal injury (tort) law involving railroads
- Most states use comparative risk (a few such as my state, Virginia, still use common law contributory negligence). Comparative risk actually originated in use with the Federal Employees Liability Act (FELA) as a way to get rid of inputed contributory negligence and the common servant rule which made it almost impossible for any railroad employees to collect against their employers. Thus, with the vast majority of railroad injuries comparative negligence will be used. If you do
Well guys,
We have minor disagreements here and there, but IMHO, I think that we all agree that this situation absolutely stinks! Yes, she lost her legs and most of us sympathize but her suing FEC is outrageous. I’m still trying to figure out how, even if wearing an I-Pod or some other gadget she could not hear a train approaching? Did she have it cranked up to 100 decibals?
It’s not just railroads. Suppose she would have been struck by a speeding bus or semi-truck as she crossed a seldom used road while listening to music. Seems that transportation companies continue to be fair game after all.
I hope FEC doesn’t decide to settle and decides to fight this one tooth and nail.
Just guessing, but I suspect that railroads get sued routinely when their trains hit vehicles at grade crossings. I wonder if it is routine to also name the crew personally in the suit, or if this Florida case is unique in that regard.
Not a lawyer responding here but lawyers typically name anybody and everybody… Eventually those that are truly not involved in the incident are dismissed but still they had costs and the stress involved. This atty probably named that last crew to do maintenance on the engine and the brake manufacturer and every one in between as well - especially the guy who posted that No Trespassing sign on the video, he should have known too! (<-- legal system favorite bs, “knew or should have known…”)
[{(-_-)}] What? Hear wha…
To the best of my knowledge FEC is not releasing the names of the crew in this case. At least not yet. My buddies over at FEC know who they are, but are not saying who.
Most? Perhaps. I certainly don’t. As I noted earlier, after a couple of fatalities you tend to get a bit callous.
Mark.
The article that I linked earlier said this:
"The eight-count complaint states that the company should have known that pedestrians routinely cross the tracks at that location but did not post ‘‘No Trespassing’’ signs on the west side of the tracks.
Yes, it’s trespassing, but that hardly stops anyone from using the spot to get to a running path on the east side of the tracks, her attorneys say."
It would be interesting to learn why pedestrians routinely cross the tracks at that location. The implication is that for some logistical reason, pedestrian traffic funnels down to cross the tracks at one particular location. To the extent that this crossing gets concentrated to one location, it should become more obvious to the railroad company, especially if the pedestrians wear a path on both sides of the crossing point.
I know of a similar situation near where I live. There is a public trail system at one point, nearly abutting a private trail system. A railroad mainline separates the two trail systems. Trail users routinely cross the tracks to get from one trail system to the other. Not only is there a well-worn path on each side, but they have also eroded the crushed rock ballast right out from between the ties.
Are you serious? If so, I suggest talking to a real railroader (not an FRN) about train operations.
Now that is just plain silly.
And exactly what good would a three-foot fence do? Keep out the gophers?
That statement is extremely accusatory and possibly libelous, and if you do not know for certain that this is what the engineer was doing, you should just shut your pie hole!
If you had read my followup, you would have noted that I was facetious (given to or marked by playful joculliarty, humorous). If I was in error, it is that I should have been more serious about such a serious incident, for which I apologize.
The only thing serious about this indcident is the level of stupidity the “victim” has shown.
You have no need to apologize; indeed, it is I who owes you an apology: I did not see your followup post.