Shortline Sammie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That verdict was pure BULLSHIT and will have
> far-reaching consequences everywhere. What part of
> NO don't you understand?
>
> If CSX doesn't win this one on appeal we might
> just as well stop running trains!
>
> Dick Samuels
> Oregon Pacific Railroad

My Samuels, please read this with an open mind: (There are others that will never understand but I am sure you will.)

darkcloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're normally a great poster, but that wasn't a
> great post. And unrealistic Utopianism is pretty
> damn far away from common sense.

Ah, and therein lies your problem. You are expecting common sense out of a situation that had none.

Common sense would have kept the film crew away from the railroad tracks when CSX said no.
Common sense would have kept the individual people from agreeing to be on the tracks at all.
Common sense would have been one of the previous train crews to call it in.
Common sense would have been some police agency to stop bye and say get the H away from the tracks.

If common sense was alive and well, this tragic accident would NEVER had happened.

AND THIS

Here is the problem:

IF a CSX train crew went by the scene earlier AND had seen the film crew setting up near the tracks AND could have reasonably deducted that the film crew was either going to film on/around the tracks or bridge on CSX property which would clearly be trespassing AND IF the crew did not make any kind of notification of that to the dispatcher (or any other authority at CSX) THEN it is quite probable that the crew broke some CSX rules/policies and therefore CSX would be considered at least partly at fault.

THAT IS COMMON SENSE.

Now, should CSX have been found 35% at fault, now way in H. The firm crew/company should be 90% at fault.

AND THIS:

People, lets clear something up here.

In a civil case, there is only two questions the judge or jury has to answer yes or no to: (I am paraphrasing here)

Did the defendant, based upon a preponderance of evidence, cause the alleged injury that is being claimed by something the defendant did? (If the answer is yes, the second question does not apply.)

Could the defendant, based upon a preponderance of evidence, have reasonable been expected to have done something that would have mitigated, altered or otherwise prevented the injury being claimed?

Then, if there is more than one defendant that received a yes answer, a percentage of fault has to be found for each defendant.

For example, if you are at a red signal at an intersection that turns green for you, but you clearly see a vehicle traveling in the direction that now has a red signal is not going to stop and instead run the red light and go through the intersection, yet you go ahead and drive and get hit by that other vehicle, you are partially at fault for the resulting accident. Why? Because you saw that vehicle was going to run the red light and therefore you were reasonably expected to wait for that vehicle to pass. Of course, in some states, you are actually required by law to wait until the intersection is clear.

Now, none of us know what the CSX crews of those 2 trains saw when they went by. But apparently the lawyers involved (NO PROSECUTER IN A CIVIL TRIAL) were able to convince the jury that for CSX, the answer to the second question was yes.

Now, like I already stated, it is a travesty that CSX was assigned 35% liability. Since the film company had a yes to the first question that should be an automatic minimum 75% liability.

Now, will this force changes at the railroads? Unfortunately yes. That is what happens in today's environment. Lawyers find the tiniest thing to sue on so that they can make money which then causes new policies/laws because people can not be expected to follow common sense.