Although not typically preservation oriented (Perhaps self-preservation) but based on an article by Mr. McCarthy in the RPYN editorial section.

In the article Mr McCarthy mentions several outside factors regarding insurance that through a "domino-effect" eventually effect the way that museums and preservation groups buy insurance, and how raises in premiums come about.. Of course the horrible events of September 11th, 2001 are mentioned as having a causual effect along with other aspects of investments gone-bad, etc. In short, things we have no control over.

While I was reading this informative article, the television was on and I had tuned in CNN News. On the screen was the Alvarez family, relatives of Juan Alvarez, who placed his vehicle on the railroad crossing in Ventura County, California causing that horrible passenger train event. Lined up in the obligatory interview session was an attorney for the family, Mrs. Alvarez, and another relative. The interview topic was the outrageous charges placed on Mr Alvarez by the Ventura County authorities. Mr. attorney in perfect legal-eese described how erroneous the charges were against his client, stating that strictly according to (his view on) law, the event should be treated than nothing other than an attempted suicide, and that the authorities were bending to media pressure with regard to these charges. (Juan Alvarez is charged with murder and the authorities are debating the issues of whether it qualifies as a death-penalty case.)

Mr. attorney lamented that "we can't allow victims to dictate the meteing out of justice" and that his client " had no intent to cause that type of incident", and on a final note stated "who would have even thought the train would have de-railed?" His client obviously "needed help", and never received it.

To CNN's credit, and to my surprise, the female interviewer expressed amazement at these remarks, pointing out the number of deaths, casualities, and damage( monetary and otherwise) incurred. She also noted that Mrs. Alvarez had a restraining order against her husband at the time of the incident.

But Mr attorney was ready with his "spin" on this issue, stating that there had been numerous "cries for help" made by Mr. Alvarez that were unheeded, and the end result is still that his client "never meant for anyone to get hurt".

So we have two incidents one that already documented (World Trade Center) that according to the article by Mr McCarthy, has had effect on insurance, the way we travel, and our spending patterns for leisure activities, and this one, which although not adjudicated, could also have an effect, depending of course on the outcome, although at a lesser level of loss.

But the interseting part that I see, is that we have one event that was deliberately intentional, compared to one where intent is going to be questioned. And the coordinating factor is that somewhere, somehow, we're all probably going to have to pay for it in some way.

And that's the hard part.

Readers:

And what did I read in a newspaper sticle on the web one or two days ago? Apparently Mr. Alvarez' attorney is suing Metrolink because they push their trains with a locmotive and that was a cause of the mayhem. Talk about lack of accountability and the ethics of the attorney.

It will be intresting to see how this whole thing plays out.

Jim Vaitkunas
Minnesota Streetcar Museum

Believe it or not, in the United States everyone has a right to counsel. Attorneys are often zealous advocates for their clients, which they should be. This past week, the state court of appeals heard cases in the law school courtroom. I watched a legal aid attorney stammer his way through the oral arguments, have no real knowledge of the legal basis of the appeal, and appear as if he didn't understand the brief he wrote. I kind of felt sorry for the guy who was appealing his criminal conviction.

As for insurance, it's a cost redistribution system. While this may sound overly simple, it is important to remember this, and how events affect rates. I think it will take a while before such an incident creeps into the actuary tables, if at all.

But Mr attorney was ready with his "spin" on this issue, stating that there had been numerous "cries for help" made by Mr. Alvarez that were unheeded, and the end result is still that his client "never meant for anyone to get hurt".
If I'm not mistaken the guy had been in drug rehab twice & dropped out or for whatever reason did not complete the rehab. On another note the wife of the sheriffs deputy that was killed has already filed against Metro saying it was the railroads fault because they were running the train in push mode (cab car forward locomotive at the rear ). And there already has been an assertion made in an LA newspaper that the cab car weighs as much as a locomotive even though it has only engineer controls and no prime mover generator, traction motors & so on. The misinformation & "SPIN" is really flying already...........................................Wooly

Well this casts a completely different light on the case. I think that the poor guy needs help. His family needs help because of the terrible trauma that this has caused him. Why he probably should receive a settlement in the millions because of this, the poor man........NOT!