Here's the link: Civil Suit This one had some strange things happen in the incident. UP is planning on appealing so this young lady will not get her money right away. Eric
Interesting. There is a "doctrine of last clear chance" that means you should not cause an accident even if the other person is doing something illegal. But, did the boy friend push her on to the track after the train was in sight? Seems to be a fact issue decided for the plaintiff by the jury. Interesting appeal. Could it be partly affirmed and partly reversed? Maybe drop the punitive damages? Also, why was the conductor driving the train? A joke there...obviously confused media reporting...again.
Could be the engineer was on the john. Interesting note, Amtrak is using one man crews (er, person, there are a few women) so when they have to take a potty break they have to tell the dispatch they are stopping the train. I heard them on the scanner do that on the Sunset between San Antonio and Houston a few weeks ago. Dispatch informed the Amtrak guy he only gets one restroom stop on that route.
Wow, a nasty judgement call. The problem with these cromagnons in the media today, is that they do not understand a a 16,000+ ton coal train cannot stop on a dime, much less in a mile. In Castle Rock, that Joint Line handles many coal trains, very likely what hit her. If she sees the train coming, and her car wasn't out of the way, why didn't she bail out? It seems as much her fault as the railroads, if not more hers. Maybe her boyfriend was trying to get rid of her...
I was wondering the same thing. Did the automaker get sued because the door wouldn't open? </font>[/QUOTE]You must have plaintiff counsel in your blood! In all seriousness I have a case where the plaintiff attorney is known quite well from a suit he filed against an auto maker. He fell asleep at the wheel and of course crashed and, sued them. The seats were too comfortable.....
My last rant... These cases won't go away unless the judicial system gets a major overhaul. Plaintiffs have nothing to loose when they file suit. Defense, on the other hand, has to pile up loads of expenses. If they win, what do they get? A court case that may stop future cases of the same nature. Yippee!!! How about the plantiff has to pay up on the cost of defense?! That might make some of these people start thinking about filing all these suits. Of course, a jury that has a lick of common sense seems to be hard to come by these days as well.
Sounds like the girl stopped on the tracks and her Boyfriend was trying to ram her off. She must have gone into shock or something when she saw the train. First of all, she should NEVER had stopped on the crossing. Second, Trains don't stop on a dime. Another article by the same paper on November 12, 2002 mentioned the train was an empty coal train at 40 mph. A set of light engines could stop within a quarter mile from 40, but a likely pair of locomotives with at least 80 empty hoppers will probably take all or more than a mile to stop. It is a shame that the girl suffered the injuries she did, but since the crossing gates dropped nearly 30 seconds before impact and the engineer was blowing the horn, I can't see how UP can be responsible in any way. The prosecution managed to make the jury feel sorry for the girl who was just plain ignorant. Yes trains are big, long and are not easy to stop, but they are a safe mode of transportation and poses verey little risks to the public, except when someone does something stupid or ignorant around or on trains.
I read another article and it mentions that the vehicle was NOT on the tracks until the boyfriend rammed it. The engineer did not apply braking until the vehicle was rammed. As a side note, there is also a poll. 83% (3050 votes) say the railroad is NOT at fault. 17% say the railroad was (618 votes).
I was wondering the same thing. Did the automaker get sued because the door wouldn't open? </font>[/QUOTE]I read some of the other articles. The conductor (not the engineer) saw her car stopped clear of the tracks. Later he saw her car on the tracks and the train did not/was unable to stop. That is what I mean...fact issue and the jury believed her. I doubt UP will win on appeal unless the appeals court can see that the verdict is not supported by the facts. Or, there could be some procedural error. I agree that any local jury would probably have sympathy for the plaintiff. This is the case where UP billed the plaintiff for damages (mostly salaries) 18 months after the accident. UP said it was a clerical error, but it probably did not endear UP to the local citizens.
Yup. So very true. Common sense has almost ceased to exist. In this particular instance, going from what we are able to read so far, no matter how she got onto the tracks, I don't see any way the railroad can legitimately be held at fault. Boxcab E50
From what I remember, her car stalled as she was waiting in traffic. Unfortunately it stalled whe she was close to the tracks. That crossing is very busy in the morning and congestion was common. Since the accident, UP built a flyover at the intersection. Eric
As the saying goes, "Common sense isn't so common." Was the train supposed to swerve to avoid her car? As a truck driver, I go through this kind of thing every time I get behind the wheel. People don't know (or care) that the laws of physics apply to everything.
The jury consisted of today's college graduates who majored in stupidity. With guys like Ward Churchill teaching them, what should we expect?
I can imagine that truck drivers see some unbelieveable acts by automobile drivers! It is sort of like being a pilot. When you are on the road or in the air a lot, you see and are exposed to a lot more incidents that the average person who only drives/flies occasionally. Be safe!!!
We have those problems everytime someone puts their car in front of a train here. Luckily for Aus LC incidents are few and far between. A couple of yrs back a Countrylink XPT doing 160km/h hit a car (that had been seen by passengers and was believed by many to be racing the train) the 5 occupants of the car were killed and the train derailed with few injuries to the passengers (bumps/bruises) The level crossing was fitted with a circuit predictor so ample warning was given but it had no booms. so the railways got the blame. they are now building an overpass at that area. I know a friend of the driver invloved and that driver retired medically unfit after that one - very messy Another one happened in the northwest of NSW, a woman drove through in front of a DMU, was killed, the impact derailing the train and rolling both cars of the train, minor injuries to the passengers. After that one they lowered the maximum speed outside the metropolitan area to 120km/h so they had to rewirte the countrylink timetable to reflect the slower times. In this country they can't show what happens to someone when they do things, if they did they would probably think twice about jumping or driving in front of our trains.
In this country, they used to show RR accident movies to kids in schools. It was part of their regular education. Long before their driver "training" courses. But if they still do so, it's infrequent at best. Can't expose people to such awful scenes. Someone might be upset, or offended. It was these films, and growing up in a RR family, that taught me caution. Is dying a better alternative to being upset, or offended? Apparently it is...... Boxcab E50
Anyone in the USA remember "Signal 30?" That was a film about the State Highway Patrol in Ohio and the accidents that they had covered. It sure made me think twice about driving an automobile in a reckless fashion. Actual film of burned bodies, dismemberment, etc. I think this was about 1960; I was 16 years old.
