I don't know whether to laugh or curse! It's been reported by the Bakersfield Californian newspaper that a $13.6 million dollar wrongfull death lawsuit has been filled by the families of three victims of a December 12 train crash at a crossing near Shafter, California.
The driver of this vehicle either failed to see the flashing lights at the crossing (this was not a crossing with gates-nonetheless one should heed the warnings of a signal), or thought he could out-race a train going over 70mph.
The families of those killed are blaming Amtrak saying that the crew failed to stop the train fast enough to avert what would have been an inevitable collision anyway. By the way, would anybody like to take a guess on how long it would take to stop a Southbound Amtrak San Joaquin train going about 79mph on a dark, damp winter evening caring about 95 people-and to come to a safe and complete stop? California Highway Patrol Inspected the locomotive and questioned the engineer. Well documented is the fact that the engineer did apply the emergency brake-something that they don't customarily do-UNLESS THE TRAIN NEEDS TO COME TO AN IMMEDIATE STOP. Even with the emergency brake application, it took the train almost 1/2 mile to come to a safe and complete stop-what else could the engineer do? .
I know I shouldn't be laughing at the families-I don't wish to make light of their grief. What I don't understand is how Amtrak can be found liable for another persons lack of good judgement(to put it kindly). Maybe Amtrak has just become just an easy target because of their recent problems.>
Lets continue to support programs like Operation Lifesaver to better educate people about the consequences of this deadly game.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
It's called: "Operation Deep=Pockets".
Posted by rresor (Member # 128) on :
This happens all the time. My favorite lawsuits are the ones by people who *drive into the side of the train* at a crossing with gates and flashers. They say, "The train should have been equipped with reflectors"! And in fact, the FRA is considering requiring reflective tape on the sides of freight cars to make them more visible.
But Mr. Norman is right. It's mainly the "deep pockets" syndrome. After all, if you ran a red light and smashed into somebody proceeding on green at the posted speed, you wouldn't normally even consider trying to sue; for one thing, the police would have written you up for failing to yield the ROW.
This happens with grade crossing accidents too, but plaintiffs usually request a jury trial, admit their guilt, but convince the jury that they still deserve "something" for their pain and suffering. Under the doctrine of "comparative negligence", the jury will find the bonehead driver of the auto 49% liable, and the railroad 51%; the bonehead therefore gets to collect 51% of the damages awarded.
Railroads have taken to appealing this sort of nonsense, and in fact on appeal (to a judge, not a jury) the awards are frequently vacated.
Still, it costs the railroad time and money.
Posted by MPALMER (Member # 125) on :
It definitely sounds like deep pockets. This is one of those outrageous events that probably happen more often than we know.
One explanation I saw regarding why people drive through grade crossings is that (1) They've been across it regularly in their daily lives and never see a train, and (2) When the lights are on/gates are down they assume it is a malfunction of the signals
Another explanation is that people are engaged in other things...talking (cell phone or their kids or other passengers), putzing with the radio/tape/CD player etc and just aren't focused on driving. At least that is the theory they mention at some car/train collision sites, especially those where there are no skid marks from the car.
Regardless, the rail folks should not be held at fault in those cases where it was clearly auto driver error...
M Palmer
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
The only two situations of which I am aware that there can be railroad culpability with a grade crossing incident is 1) the signals are inoperative and 2) at unprotected crossings, the brush has not been sufficiently trimmed to allow a reasonable view for a driver to stop the vehicle being driven at a safe speed.
Regarding 1), the first order of business at the scene is for the railroad to test the signals. Ideally, this is being done concurrently with interviewing the train crew and administering the required alcohol/drug tests.
When I was in the industry, I did learn that there was at least one incident at a rural crossing with no signals where the brush has not been sufficiently cut back to allow the "LOOK" in order for the "STOP", the railroad reportedly paid damages.
Funny, but what about "LISTEN"?
Posted by BTrain (Member # 1687) on :
Trust me, I know the terrain where this occured-and there's nothing but dirt and power lines. No brush apart from tumbleweeds for miles.
Posted by Ken V (Member # 1466) on :
Mr. Norman's post brings up an interesting question. I too have long known the slogan as Stop, Look, Listen! I think that the new watchwords (Look, Listen, Live) are an improvement, but what happened to Stop?
Posted by Kairho (Member # 1567) on :
This occurred because of our litigious society and the aforementioned deep pockets.
A few years back a private plane slammed into the side of a cliff and the survivors sued on the basis of the seat belts not holding. Not sure, but I believe they won. Jeesh.
.