"Ohl was walking along the train tracks with earbuds in on March 2 when he “sensed,” but didn’t hear, a train approaching behind him, his mother wrote on a GoFundMie page after the accident.
Ohl’s lawsuit claims the CSX train did not have a properly functioning front-facing camera, preventing the train’s engineer and conductor from seeing Ohl in time to avoid hitting him. CSX also did not put up fencing or other “warning devices” to keep pedestrians a safe distance from the tracks, the suit says.
Ohl was at least 1,000 feet from the train when Marshall and Martin first saw him, but they did not ring the train’s bell, blow the train horn or apply the emergency brake before hitting Ohl, the lawsuit says.
I’m not sure what difference the camera would make either - it’s not like the crew is watching a display of what it sees… If there had been a camera, it probably would not add anything to the teen’s case - more likely it would help the railroad.
Bell and horn will be on the “tape,” whether the teen says he heard them or not. Maybe they didn’t sound them - we shall see.
What’s not mentioned is whether he was wearing headphones or earbuds, which would have diminished his ability to actually hear either the horn or the bell.
And once again, we have the public believing a train can stop on a dime, and being incredulous that it cannot.
Be sure to listen to the 911 call made after the accident, as the operator plays 20 questions with a kid who says his legs have been cut off. Something is weird here but I can’t put my finger on it.
Apparently the police report says he was lying down with his legs draped over the rail.
So, the railroad is being sued because the boy did not know that it is dangerous to walk on a railroad track? In this case, ignorance is not bliss.
I am reminded of the woman who was running on the FEC track and listening to something drowned out the horn of the FEC locomotive that came up behind her; she also lost the ability to run.
Rounding up livestock huh? Ain’t got a ____ to stand on literally or figureatively. Laws and regulations are for other people?
2010 Tennessee Code
Title 39 - Criminal Offenses
Chapter 14 - Offenses Against Property
Part 4 - Burglary and Related Offenses
39-14-405 - Criminal trespass.
39-14-405. Criminal trespass.
(a) A person commits criminal trespass if the person enters or remains on property, or any portion of property, without the consent of the owner. Consent may be inferred in the case of property that is used for commercial activity available to the general public or in the case of other property when the owner has communicated the owner’s intent that the property be open to the general public.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) A person entered or remained on property that the person reasonably believed to be property for which the owner’s consent to enter had been granted;
(2) The person’s conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner’s use of the property; and
(3) The person immediately left the property upon request.
(c) The defenses to prosecution set out in subsection (b) shall not be applicable to a person violating this section if the proper
Dispatchers generally have a set of flip cards they use to evaluate medical calls. Ask a question, go to the card matching the question, ask another question. And so on. We refer to it as pre-arrival, and the information is passed along to the responders. If there’s something that can be done by the folks on the scene to help mitigate injuries or the illness at hand, instructions will be given (including CPR).
I looked at the GoFundMe page - some pretty harsh comments there (although pretty much along the lines of what we’re saying here). I suspect their appeal won’t be as successful as it might have been had this been a true accident…
The lines about an inoperative front-facing camera is interesting, because it could imply one or both of the following:
A. The locomotive’s standard forward-facing event recorder camera was inoperative
B. These people expect trains to have a long-distance camera to help crews see farther down the tracks.
Onbiously option B is so full of crap and would be tossed right out. What I think they’re indicating is that the event recorder camera was inoperative, which would mean that we do not have video of the incident. While the event recorders are great when accidents happen and the railroad can prove themselves not at fault, having an inoperative piece of equipment like that may actually hurt the railroad.
I would suspect that the train’s data recorder, much like that of an airplane’s, was functioning to give them the telemetry.
I agree…something is fishy. Either they’re going after a faulty camera or somehow expect trains to have long-range cameras.
How bout this folks: using the FRA’s rules, fouling the track is being within 4’ of the nearest rail, which means you’ve gotta be within a 13’ strip to get hit under normal conditions.
Maybe, just maybe, if you’re in that 13’ zone, you shouldn’t be able to sue the railroad?
Reading one of the links to other related articles in the story, one states that the conductor reported he was laying along the tracks with his legs over the rails. He denies this. Not knowing much actual details, that sounds more plausible. Had he been walking down the middle of the tracks I think his injuries would’ve been different and possibly fatal.
Maybe he saw one of those injury attorney ad testimonials…i.e “I got 3 million dollars, 100 times more than what insurance offered”… Sometimes, on a bad day, you almost want to go to the local fast food and dump a hot pot of coffee over your head… It would be their fault for not securing the pot properly, and if you survive you’re set for life financially.