 |
Re: Ricky Gates et al
Author: Dr Zarkoff
Date: 12-04-2013 - 11:23
>Clearly a can of worms. Is an engineer or train crew any more or less liable than say a commercial truck driver? If so, should an engineer or crew in passenger service or hauling haz mat be compensated for his/her added potential liability/legal exposure?
This by in large depends on whether the carrier (or tucking company) is self-insured. If self-insured, there are legal decisions and precedents going back as far as the 1870-1880s which provide a fair amount of liability protection to the employees.
Negligence on the part of the individual, deliberate or otherwise, is another matter, and this is what opens the can of worms.
>Latest news reports suggest that the Metro North had just changed shift schedules, which may have been a contributing factor.
Oh no!! We can't even begin to consider this!!!
>supposedly the FRA has sent MEtro North a letter telling them to get their act together.
At this point allow me to quote the parrot in Disney's Aladdin: "Why am I NOT surprised?"
>Should a manager or company officials be held to the same standard if their actions or knowledge contributed to the incident?
You becha; after all "they're involved", to quote that legal adage.
>I think we need to look back at Ricky Gates who was directly responsible for the current drug testing and engineer's certification rules - Amtrak Wreck Link
While contributory in a significant way, this is actually a bit of an urban legend. The straw which broke the camel's back and directly caused the introduction of FRA-mandated drug testing was the Amtrak accident/derailment at Nekoken, Delaware, about a year later. It occurred because a tower operator who had been smoking pot sent an Amtrak train into an out of service section of main track where it ran over a ballast regulator, derailed, and went down the embankment at 90 mph (I know the engineer, not that I would call him a personal friend). Fortunately, there were no fatalities. Prior to this, drug testing was "company policy".
This by in large depends on whether the carrier (or tucking company) is self-insured. If self-insured, there are legal decisions and precedents going back as far as the 1870-1880s which provide a fair amount of liability protection to the employees.
Negligence on the part of the individual, deliberate or otherwise, is another matter, and this is what opens the can of worms.
>Latest news reports suggest that the Metro North had just changed shift schedules, which may have been a contributing factor.
Oh no!! We can't even begin to consider this!!!
>supposedly the FRA has sent MEtro North a letter telling them to get their act together.
At this point allow me to quote the parrot in Disney's Aladdin: "Why am I NOT surprised?"
>Should a manager or company officials be held to the same standard if their actions or knowledge contributed to the incident?
You becha; after all "they're involved", to quote that legal adage.
>I think we need to look back at Ricky Gates who was directly responsible for the current drug testing and engineer's certification rules - Amtrak Wreck Link
While contributory in a significant way, this is actually a bit of an urban legend. The straw which broke the camel's back and directly caused the introduction of FRA-mandated drug testing was the Amtrak accident/derailment at Nekoken, Delaware, about a year later. It occurred because a tower operator who had been smoking pot sent an Amtrak train into an out of service section of main track where it ran over a ballast regulator, derailed, and went down the embankment at 90 mph (I know the engineer, not that I would call him a personal friend). Fortunately, there were no fatalities. Prior to this, drug testing was "company policy".
