some people... I bet they didn't even think of suing the dumb @$$ that drove them over the crossing when a train was coming The second float didn't enter the tracks until several seconds after the warning system went off, the NTSB said. By that time, the guardrail was lowering.
He may sue, but should lose. His opinion of what constitutes "enough warning" really isn't relevant. As long as the crossing protection meets legal requirements regarding "enough warning" he won't have a legal leg to stand on. Now as for a sympathetic jury ignoring the law, and seeing a company with deep pockets as the defendant, then we can count on a big settlement. It's too bad judges don't limit these cases to applying the law.CSXIndyLine wrote:While watching the Today show yesterday morning, one of the victims and his attorney were interviewed. From what I heard, the victim is planning on suing the railroad because the grade crossing does not give enough warning to the approaching train.
This stuff makes my blood boil. Abandon this one, too (after the railroad runs out of money), and put all the freight on trucks. That would be a lot safer, just like US-12 in Sturgis.MP73point4 wrote: Now as for a sympathetic jury ignoring the law, and seeing a company with deep pockets as the defendant, then we can count on a big settlement. It's too bad judges don't limit these cases to applying the law.
The bull $#!+ that the attorney is saying I mean wow... I knew that the lawyer was talkin out of his a$$ but wow... Some people“They knew it was going to happen, because there was a police escort. This process doesn’t have anything to do with crossing safety,” he said, adding that he believes the main issue was that safety devices at the crossing weren’t properly timed to give motorists enough advance warning.
Now trains gonna have to stop and wait for teh police cars at da train traks. 
MIDLAND, Texas – The organization that sponsored a parade through Midland last week did not have a permit for this year’s parade, in which a Union Pacific train struck a float, killing four veterans a city spokesman told the San Antonio Express-News. “The city of Midland did not issue a permit nor did the city receive a permit application from the Show of Support organization,” said Ryan Stout, city spokesman.
During this year’s parade, a truck pulling a flatbed trailer carrying a dozen veterans, their wives, and two escorts tried to cross the UP tracks as the crossing warning signals activated and was hit by the train. Although the parade didn’t have a permit, police officers, mostly with the Midland County Sheriff’s Office, were escorting the procession. Union Pacific has said that it was unaware of the procession.
Bob Pottroff, an attorney representing a U.S. Army sergeant who was injured in the crash and his wife, said the permit is somewhat irrelevant. “They knew it was going to happen, because there was a police escort. This process doesn’t have anything to do with crossing safety,” he said, adding that he believes the main issue was that safety devices at the crossing weren’t properly timed to give motorists enough advance warning.
However, National Transportation Safety Board member Mark Rosekind said Nov. 18 that preliminary information indicates all of the signals at the intersection – including traffic lights, warning bells, crossing arms and flashing red lights at the crossings – were functioning as designed and timed within federal standards at the time of the crash.
Rosekind also said that, based on preliminary data, it appeared that the driver of the Smith Industries Inc. flatbed, Dale Andrew Hayden, 50, also a veteran, entered the crossing seconds after the warning lights and bells were activated, and one second after the crossing arms began to descend.
Yesterday the NTSB conducted a sight distance test at the scene of the collision to collect more data for its investigation, said spokesman Peter Knudson. A UP train with 10 cars and a locomotive and a Smith Industries tractor-trailer each traveled back and forth through the intersection several times during the three-hour test. “We want to understand what each operator saw and heard at various points,” Knudson said. “That will help us understand what their perspectives were.”
People that don't know anything about railroads/trains still go after the railroad like it's their fault. It's a big company that can pay out big bucks. Same thing that happens when any Tom, Dick or Harry gets hit by a train; 99% of the time it's not the railroad's fault, but the railroad settles outside court. So, "safe" is a relative word in this scenario. The NTSB has already found that the railroad was not at fault in this case, that will not change. That being said, that doesn't mean the victim's families cannot bring UP to court - "it was a Union Pacific train that killed my loved one" - all rules, regulations and findings aside, because the victim's families don't care about that stuff. Can't say that I blame them completely, as they've been through a traumatic event; but like I said, they view it as 'a big bad UP train plowing through the float', not as 'an ignorant truck driver parking thr float on the tracks'. The train should've stopped, right? Family sues UP, they go to court, UP says its not our fault, but we're sorry, here's some money, now go away...MQT3001 wrote:I think UP is pretty safe in this case, since the crossing was functioning right and they had no knowledge of the parade. The truck driver and/or company is gonna be dealt a series of tough blows by this one....
The trucking company declares bankruptcy because they can't pay the lawsuits, and folds up shop. They reopen under a different name, and move on. Victims sue the railroad because they have 'deep pockets' and they can't just as easily declare bankruptcy and 'move on'. That's why they target the big corporations, and its nearly pointless to try and go after 'the little guy' who is really at fault.MQT3001 wrote:The truck driver and/or company is gonna be dealt a series of tough blows by this one....
And the nice attorney takes 30-50% for his efforts.Mr. Tops wrote:People that don't know anything about railroads/trains still go after the railroad like it's their fault. It's a big company that can pay out big bucks. Same thing that happens when any Tom, Dick or Harry gets hit by a train; 99% of the time it's not the railroad's fault, but the railroad settles outside court. So, "safe" is a relative word in this scenario. The NTSB has already found that the railroad was not at fault in this case, that will not change. That being said, that doesn't mean the victim's families cannot bring UP to court - "it was a Union Pacific train that killed my loved one" - all rules, regulations and findings aside, because the victim's families don't care about that stuff. Can't say that I blame them completely, as they've been through a traumatic event; but like I said, they view it as 'a big bad UP train plowing through the float', not as 'an ignorant truck driver parking thr float on the tracks'. The train should've stopped, right? Family sues UP, they go to court, UP says its not our fault, but we're sorry, here's some money, now go away...MQT3001 wrote:I think UP is pretty safe in this case, since the crossing was functioning right and they had no knowledge of the parade. The truck driver and/or company is gonna be dealt a series of tough blows by this one....
See, that's where the court system is broken. The ruling of the NTSB should be enough for a judge to say, "Sorry, this is a frivolous lawsuit."Mr. Tops wrote:The NTSB has already found that the railroad was not at fault in this case, that will not change. That being said, that doesn't mean the victim's families cannot bring UP to court - "it was a Union Pacific train that killed my loved one" - all rules, regulations and findings aside, because the victim's families don't care about that stuff. Can't say that I blame them completely, as they've been through a traumatic event; but like I said, they view it as 'a big bad UP train plowing through the float', not as 'an ignorant truck driver parking thr float on the tracks'. The train should've stopped, right? Family sues UP, they go to court, UP says its not our fault, but we're sorry, here's some money, now go away...
CSXIndyLine wrote:While watching the Today show yesterday morning, one of the victims and his attorney were interviewed. From what I heard, the victim is planning on suing the railroad because the grade crossing does not give enough warning to the approaching train.
atrainguy60 wrote:UP is going to allow the attorneys of the victims of the incident to do their own tests on the signals and track.
http://news.yahoo.com/railroad-allow-tr ... 04387.html
What a load of BS.Yahoo! News wrote:Attorneys for the victims say the truck should have had 30 seconds of warning time, but only had 20. "We think that the root cause of the accident is the short warning time," Glasheen said.
Unless they are following another semi, in which case half a car length at 70 mph is plenty.Yahoo! News wrote:Attorneys for the victims say the truck should have had 30 seconds of warning time, but only had 20..
That's not going to get them anywhere in their lawsuit against Union Pacific. That's the current Federal Regulation, 20 seconds. So, what they are saying is, in their opinion, that is not enough time and it should be changed to 30 seconds. Maybe their lawsuit should be to get the regulation changed...Yahoo! News wrote:Attorneys for the victims say the truck should have had 30 seconds of warning time, but only had 20. "We think that the root cause of the accident is the short warning time," Glasheen said.
And it's purely the opinion of the lawyers. You can also bet that any prospective juror who knows diddly about the railroads will be challenged and likely disqualified from jury duty. Nobody ever said our legal system is fair.Mr. Tops wrote:That's not going to get them anywhere in their lawsuit against Union Pacific. That's the current Federal Regulation, 20 seconds. So, what they are saying is, in their opinion, that is not enough time and it should be changed to 30 seconds. Maybe their lawsuit should be to get the regulation changed...Yahoo! News wrote:Attorneys for the victims say the truck should have had 30 seconds of warning time, but only had 20. "We think that the root cause of the accident is the short warning time," Glasheen said.
