Saw this come through on my RSS feed.

http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=27380

It's interesting to see that the plaintiff claims:



While I feel the accident was tragic I also wonder how much is enough when it comes to what a railroad can do to make a crossing safe. The clearing of brush near crossings is an issue for more than one tourist/heritage railroad. When is there a responsibility on the driver for his/her own actions? I don't know the specifics of this crossing but they make it out to sound like gross negligence.

Something is fishy here:
1.) KCS in WISCONSIN?
2.) A Northbound train in a town with only east west tracks?
3.) A collision at the 7th street crossing, in a town where 7th street doesn't come within a block of the tracks?

Me thinks some media types need fact checking lessons. The deceased was from St. Louis.

Jeff

It comes as a shock to a lot of attorneys that the railroad doesn't control the type of signals - usually the DOT and/or the state PUC do, and the railroad follows orders.

Now the railroad can certainly be hung out to dry for issues that they do control - and that includes maintenance, vegetation, horn blowing, etc.

We've been called in as expert witnesses by both sides on occasion - it's never a pretty thing, but I can tell you that the outcome is about evenly split - 50% of the time the railroad is held blameless and 50% of the time the railroad is at least contributory to the problem. Rarely if ever is the railroad 100% at fault. But your typical attorney is so ignorant about railroads that they assume the decision to do crossbucks/signals/gates is the railroad, not the DOT.

One of the other things that needs to be said is that even WITH warning devices, the sight lines have to be valid. There are several situations I've been in on excursion railroads where the only safe way through a crossing without gates is either to do a pause in the island circuit just before entering the roadway, or to do a stop and flag. No matter how right you are, being in the cab and killing/injuring somebody when you were 'right' is so traumatic for everyone that it can do damage to the organization well in excess of the equipment involved.

If you think that 'stop and flag' is simply impossible, I'll invite you up to Lowell, MA, where the NPS trolley has to stop and flag EVERY downtown street crossing on EVERY trip, which involves putting a flag(person) out in heavy traffic. THe locals are totally familiar with it, and the safety record is incredible. Its a lot easier with a trolley than a train, but you still have to see it to believe it.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but even with flashers, I think Strasburg does a stop at Carpenters Rd. (the cemetery) because the visibility there is just zilch, and that's also where they make a show out of it with the whistle echo.

As long as or law schools keep pumping out attorneys, there will never be a court that holds people responsible for thier own actions.

Picture this: A woman sues a restaurant for damages because she put a hot cup of coffee between her legs. She squeezes her legs and gets serious burns. The judge reviews the case and sympathizes with her but throws the case out because it was her fault through stupidity, not the restaurants.

A man buys a new RV and as he's driving down the highway, sets the cruise control and leaves the driver's seat to go make coffee. The RV runs off the road. He sues the RV manufacturer for not telling him the cruise control didn't steer the RV. The judge sympathizes with him for his injuries but throws the case out becaus ehe was stupid for thinking that the cruise control would actually steer the vehicle.

It is time for people to take responsibilty for their actions and stupidity.

And for those of you that haven't heard, these are two actual incidents where people sued McDonalds and an RV manufacturer and won!

Later!
Mr. Ed

Tom,
What a railroad or person familiar with railroad operations considers responsible and sufficient generally does not coincide with what the general public expects. This is the very reason that the railroads have taken to attempting to protect themselves with forward facing cab cameras so that a jury or judge can get a better perspective from the railroad and employee point of view.

I was involved in one of these unfortunate accidents, which included the death of a young woman, in the deep south almost twenty years ago. I was running and was qualifying over the territory with the general road foreman when the train struck a vehicle at a crossbuck and yellow flashing light protected crossing. The train was overtaking a automobile on a closely paralleling highway and it turned into the path of my train. The air was already set for an impending permanent speed restriction and I was blowing the hell out of the air horn. The view was not restricted in either direction; it was the direction of travel and close proximity of the highway to the railroad that conspired to cause the collision.

The railroad was sued by the family and we went to court to defend our position. After the jury was chosen let it be sufficient to say that the demographics of the jury would not have been favorable towards the railroad. The case was settled out of court for over a million dollars and I still think about the collision often, even after getting counseling.

There was absolutely nothing that I could have done to have avoided the accident. The train was being operated in compliance with the operating rules and special instructions, including the speed, and operation of the headlight, bell and air horn. Would better crossing protection (i.e. gates) have eliminated the accident? Probably. Does the law require gates and/or flashers at every crossing. No. All the loved ones and jury generally see is that a huge profitable corporation did not do enough in their eyes to eliminate the tragic accident. Most persons' perspective is their reality. It is that simple. Because most of us here have an intimate relationship with the industry., our collective perspective is different from the general public's perspective.
Don C.

Here we go with the McDonald's lawsuit BS again...

Do you actually know anything about the case? Have you read the facts? Do you understand what happened?

She didn't sue because of mild burns. She ended up in the hospital for a week (or 8 days, reports seem to disagree on that number of days). She needed skin grafts. She originally sued only to recover her medical bill costs. This was not some money grubbing scammer looking for a quick buck.



Read these before you make any more comments on this "frivolous lawsuit"

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v. ... estaurants

http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

Randy, the Strasburg does stop eastbound just before Carpenter's. All other crossings, including Carpenter's westbound, they go right through with the gates down and lights flashing.

I am going to get a lot of flack for this but here it goes. FOR GOD SAKES COUNTER SUE THE PERSONS ESTATE FOR DAMAGES YOU ENDURED, YOU CAN DO THAT YOU KNOW. In Don's case the railroad might of settled out of court, but you still should have looked into suing the estate. Has anyone here heard of the Darwin Awards? A lot of these people qualify for one. I know some crossings are dangerous or defective like this case http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqlc7cAoDxA but a lot of the time people just sail through even when lights are flashing.

Another urban legend which has been debunked on snopes.com and many other sites.
Google "winnebago cruise control lawsuit" for plenty of references to this piece of fiction. It's unfortunate that people have nothing better to do in life than to make this stuff up. And also unfortunate that there are those who should know better that perpetuate it.

Jim Tatum.

Yes please check snopes.com on stuff like this. I was forwarded such an email today that sounded too good to be true, and checked snopes to find out it was fake.

Also check out stellaawards.com for info. on some TRUE frivolous lawsuits. Stella is the name of the woman who was burned by the McDonald's coffee.

That has nothing to do with the visibility of the crossing. I have seen them go through it without stopping when heading to the interchange. They only stop for the "ghost whistle".

For what it's worth, I think particularly with Tourist Railroads, locals and non locals alike do NOT see them as real railroads, despite the fact we all know they are. They for whatever reason, think they are cutesie things that are fake.

Particuarly with crossings that are lightly used or see routine crossing of trains doing 15 mph or less, most motorist think nothing of the crossing, despite the rule that you are, regardless of crossing protection, supposed to STOP at the crossing and look.

If you're driving and come upon an unprotected crossing, it is the drivers responsibility to STOP, not the trains. It is no different then coming to an intersection that has a malfunctioning or out traffic light. Automatically, it becomes a stop sign...you are to stop and proceed once it is clear. Most motorists are just too stupid to understand even the basic driving laws. I just watched a show about how Amsterdam has done away with street signs in a test area, including a busy intersection in a town center, where amazingly enough, everyone is on their toes, driving properly, adhearing to pedestrian laws and basic traffic laws, driving SLOWER and being fully aware of their surroundings. Not surprisingly, there have been no accidents in this test area since it began.

We in America have become a society that is too fixed on the other person taking charge/responsibility...it is the CITY or RAILROAD or STATE or OTHER DRIVER or PEDESTRAIN's responsibility to protect the driver, not the actual driver him/herself.

THAT is where we have screwed up royally...and sheister lawyers have only helped with the 'dumbing of America' in that sense.

That's false information, too.

Under PA vehicle code chapter 33 (your state may vary), you only have to stop if warning devices are activated, flagman is telling you to, train is giving an audible signal, or if there is a train close enough to consitute a hazard. The only vehicles that are required to stop are things like buses, hazmat trucks, etc.

Now if visibility is poor, you have to see the crossing is clear, but that may not require a full stop.

And RCD, the reason RRs don't counter sue is the same reason many will pay for the funerals of suicide-by-train victims: they don't want the bad publicity, nor do they want the scrutiny of an intense investigation. Besides, this country seems to always favor the "poor victim" over the "rich faceless company".

I'm not a fan of flagging crossings unnecisarily. It is one thing when rules/laws require you to, but if they don't? Blow and go! Let the car hit the engine, NOT your employee. Then you have places that flag the crossings and still blow the full x-ing sequence on the horn. What was the point of flagging then? If you are flagging, the crossing is protected. Why the need for the horn? CYA thing, I guess.

They were examples, correct or not, of personal stupidity that leads to lawsuits. So what should the owner's manual say? The cruise control does not steer the vehicle; follow the highway; track the position of cars in front or behind or beside you; check the tire pressure; turn the headlights on when it gets dark; on and on and on? How far must a manufacturer go in their instructions? Don't we as general public presume some intelligence and common sense on the part of others?

If someone starts their new car and continually holds the key in the start position until it burns out, or destroys the flywheel is the manufacturer liable becuase it doen't say in the instructions not to do it? No, because there is a presumed intelligence required to operate a motor vehicle. If the guy wants to see how much gas is in the tank by holding a lit match to the openeing and it blows up, should the manufacturer be held liable because it doesn't say not to do so in the owner's manual?

Or should we hold training classes for people on how to prepare a cup of coffee? Or maybe an instruction sheet should accompany each cup. It could say something like this: This cup contains a hot liquid. Do not put in in your lap, between you legs, knees or any other part of your body. Do not preapre the hot liquid while driving. Do not drink while driving. Sip carefully, etc, etc. Where do we draw the line? When does common sense kick in and stupidity get rejected from frivoulous lawuits?

The burn lawsuit lead to the notation on all hot cups that the contents are hot. No kidding? I know that if I buy a cup of coffee it is hot. So before I go back out onto the road, I pull into a parking space, and with the cup safely secured in a cup holder, remove the lid and prepare my coffee. I then replace the lid and go on my way. It is commone sense that I was born with that dictates my actions, not the temperature of the coffee in the cup.

Should the gun manufacturers be sued every time someone uses a gun to end their lives beacuse there is no instruction book telling you not to pull the trigger when holding the gun against your temple? Over blown? You bet, but watch it happen because someone sees dollar signs out there

So for all of you attorneys out there, get a grip. They were examples of stupidity at it's finest! Accurate or not, they were examples only! My lawyer friends and I discuss the Stella awards when they come out and we have a big laugh, and without exception, they say they would not have taken those cases because they were frivoulous. See, they have scrupples.

And for the english teachers out there, sorry for any misspelled words or bad grammar. Heavens forbid if I step on anyone else's toes!

Later!
Mr. Ed
Later!
Mr. Ed

With respect to the McDonald's coffee, and any other product or public interaction, consistency is the issue. I have purchased coffee at plenty of places where it was only warm on receipt. If a customer is accustomed to this, and then visits a new place where the coffee is much hotter, where do they receive this "common sense" education? A better example: what if they are not coffee drinkers, but are encouraged to try coffee by an advertising campaign, much as McDonald's is aggressively promoting a new line of coffee products now.

Relative to trains, if persons are accustomed to trains behaving a certain way in one state, and then they travel across country to visit your train, will there be any rude surprises for them?

Monon used to have a crossing signal that consisted of a green light that went dark when a train approached. It was considered fail-safe, but after the L&N merger they were replaced because they lacked consistency with other signals, and would confuse new visitors to a crossing.

Bull Sh*t lawsuits anyone.

http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/21984 ... ng-in-time

http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/20116 ... -railroads