Passengers Sue Amtrak over Philadelphia Derailment

[cascaderailroad]

Are there any new news updates, as to what caused this crash ?

 

[mikeman]

Amtrak deserves to be sued for running trains without allerters, PTC, and AWS ... sued so badly that they are completely shut down, and US Troops run the RR instead ... as they are not making any money, and never have made any money.

Medical insurance only covers some of your hospitalization, and the hospital kicks you to the curb as soon as you can poo by yourself ... Then Disability is denied 10 times over, and workmens comp turns you down ... and your sitting in a wheelchair for the rest of your life, with irreparable back, or head, injuries ... You better believe it ... I ever get hurt on a transit system due to negligence, I'm going to find the biggest Hebrew (as the majority of attorneys are Jewish) ambulance chaser attorney I can find !

U.S. troops run Amtrak? Did you forget your meds today Cascade? I think I will wait until they disclose exactly what happened before throwing anyone under the bus.

 

[Falcus]

@wholbr
You started this, I'll only give up when either, it becomes apparent you won't listen to anything but your own opinions (We're on our way there), or you prove me wrong (Which btw, I have yet to see a single citation of anything you've posited). After that, as long as I have the time, I have the inclination. By the by, Forums are an open place. If you didn't want to have a legalese debate, you shouldn't have started one. If people don't want to read it, they don't have to.

You want to respect me? Back your argument up..... You want to respect yourself? Don't make blatant conjecture and then rely on more conjecture when someone challenges it..... That would be the greatest of respects. You open a can of worms, be ready to deal with it.

I like how you countered hand picked points of all my posts with nothing but more conjecture on your part.

You say the United states has "Duty of Care" Laws/regulations, but I have yet to see a single citation. I clarified my point, wheres your counter point? The United States as a Whole, meaning Federal Level, and I even did you the service of looking for a directly defined applicable state or federal law, and I couldn't find one. There might be one out there, you find it, its your argument. Regardless, instead it seems you're going to try to hinge your argument on a mere 3 word mention from Wikipedia? Which doesn't even link to anything else? I at least posted the links to my citations so that their full context can be viewed, shared, discussed or dissected by any curious to do so.... Would you care to do your own arguments a bit of justice and actually go find quotation, instead of trying to make someone elses research fit your ideas?

By all means, prove me wrong, if you can. Maybe we'll both learn something, maybe I'll learn something, maybe you'll learn something. But until you back your conjecture up with citation from the U.S. Constitution you so adamantly insisted had "Duty of Care" included in it, its all colored bubbles to me. I even went looking for you, and could find nothing....

Hi everybody.

In the foregoing, Amtrak will at least initially be legally liable under “Duty of Care Regulations” as it was on their vehicle that the injuries to the passengers occurred. Therefore, preliminary notification of a forthcoming legal action by the lawyers representing the injured and next of kin of the deceased would have to be lodged at Amtrak’s registered office as no other course of action would legally be open to them.

My Challenge: Prove me wrong.
Criteria: Please Cite these "Duty of Care Regulations" that make Amtrak Liable, that their lawyers are supposedly going to argue against, and that the courts will enforce. As an offered bonus, please prove that Amtrak is in Fact Liable, as of 5/23/15 12:01AM PST...... I mean, hey, you're so certain that things are going to happen as you suggest, this should be no cake right?

Btw, its incredibly bad form to only quote the parts of a persons sentences that can be construed to support your debate outside of the context of the rest of the point/argument. But carry on if you must, though it does your arguments no justice.

Finally, this all gets away from my original, initial point, which you still have yet to say nary a word about..... How can anybody know anything when the investigation isn't even over yet? Much less us mere mortals that aren't even involved, and indeed live some thousands of miles away?

-Falcus

 

[wva-usa]

... You say the United states has "Duty of Care" Laws/regulations, but I have yet to see a single citation. ...

There's a pretty good overview of the concept of "Duty of Care" in the U.S. available here...

Brief quotes from that page follow

Anyone who has been involved in a personal injury lawsuit has come across the terms "duty of care" and "negligence." These two terms are the centerpiece of almost all lawsuits resulting from personal injuries.

...

How a Breach of Duty Leads To A Personal Injury Case

Consider an example. Pete rides a bus to work every day. One day, Dave, the driver of the bus, fails to pay attention while driving, runs a red light, and strikes a large vehicle. Pete suffers a broken arm.


Pete might decide to sue the bus company for his injuries. Pete would file a negligence lawsuit.


First, Pete would have to prove Dave's duty of care. Since Dave was driving a bus, he was a common carrier. We know that common carriers have a duty to act with a particularly high level of care to keep passengers safe.


Second, Pete would have to prove that Dave breached the duty of care. Dave ran a red light and struck a truck because he was not paying attention. That would be a breach of the duty to act reasonably to keep passengers safe.


Third, Pete would have to prove that he was harmed. He suffered a broken arm, which certainly counts as damages.


Fourth, Pete would have to prove that the breach caused the harm. Pete would not have been injured if Dave had been paying attention. No intervening acts contributed to the injury. So, we can say that the breach caused the harm.


So, Pete has established Dave's (and the bus company's) fault for the harm suffered, and Pete would have a valid personal injury lawsuit.

 

[Falcus]

There's a pretty good overview of the concept of "Duty of Care" in the U.S. available here...

Brief quotes from that page follow

Thanks for the link. I do understand the principles involved. My challenge however has little to do with the operational common understanding of the issues at hand, and more with the supposed codified Laws that have yet to be cited by anyone.... Certain things were said, and have been defended as being accurate, I'd like to see that in writing.

To expound on this:
I fully get Negligence. I understand Duty of Care, both here and abroad. But heres the thing about every description of "Duty of Care" I've found about it inside the U.S.

At all times, all people in the United States have a legal duty to act reasonably so as to avoid injuring other people.

-http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/duty-of-care.html

All *people* have a legal duty to act *reasonably*...... I have yet to see a law that defines this. Apparently Florida and Massachusetts have em, but I haven't gone digging for them as I really can't care as they're not involved in this debate, nor do I have any plans to ever move to either. Yes, everyday lawsuits are won or lost in this nation on a judge's decision based on these basic principles using everything from case examples to actually employing laws where there has been an obvious breach of one. And yes, if Amtrak or its representatives are found guilty of Negligence (See every other post I've written, and the paragraph below I'm going to explain this in YET AGAIN), I'm sure the cash will fly.....

What I'm challenging a certain other person in this thread to do, is to back his words up, when he mentioned a constitutional requirement, a Law, or any other legally binding document, that directly deals with Duty of Care. I have yet to see one, from him or anyone else.....

As I've said, in absolutely every post I've made in this thread so far. Regardless of Duty of Care is Concerned, if Amtrak (or in this case its engineer) is found "Criminally Innocent" of Negligence, then all of this is null, void, and a passing debate for no real reason. The filed Lawsuits will have little ground to gain traction on. And as we're still waiting on an Investigation to conclude, MUCH LESS report, Nobody, in this thread to date (Unless someone secretly works for the NTSB?) knows what the contents of that report are or who they lay the blame at..... So, as much as you all are reading about the "Legalese" as another party started calling it, as he keeps dragging it back TO that, he, and apparently others, keep missing the point of my first, and sub points of every other post I've made in this thread on this score......

-Falcus

 

[wva-usa]

Common law isn't codified (you have to read cases.)

 

[wholbr]

HiEverybody.

Common law isn't codified (you have to read cases.)

Hi everybody
Wva-usa, you are completely correct in your above comment . Reading what is known as benchmark or landmark rulings by such bodies as the High Court, Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court will give anyone an excellent insight as to how “Duty of Care” is viewed and judged under various legal argument.

However, I do genuinely understand when falcus emphasises “People” and “reasonably” in his posting at #25 of this thread. I do remember in the mid-1980s when I took my first steps into industrial safety me and many others in our first tutorial group had no end arguments with our lecturers over the same two above words that falcus used in his posting. We argued again and again the view that what is considered reasonable care by one person will be seen as unreasonable by another, therefore how can you quantify that in law. We were always told by lecturers that those same arguments go on in every safety course they took, and that situation remains true on tutorial courses right up until today as students grapple with the concept, often with great difficulty.

The truth is that you cannot quantify duty of care as laid out legislation in the way that you can quantify such things as what constitutes murder as against manslaughter. However, duty of care by one person towards another is at the very heart of the legal system(s) in any civilised society. Perhaps the best description of its meaning is as it is laid out in the United Kingdom “Health and Safety at Work Regulations” where in section after section it defines duty of care in terms of both employer and employee must do “everything reasonably practical” to protect the health and safety of all persons in a workplace and any person in the vicinity of that workplace.

In the above, it is the words everything reasonably practical that is the key to understanding duty of care. To put it another way, in everyday life any one person should do all that is reasonably practical to ensure that he does not cause damage or injury to any other person. The foregoing is the way that various investigations and courts judge duty of care.

Therefore falcus , I hope you will feel that I have explained myself better if I have indeed understood what you were questioning when you emphasised “people and reasonably” in your last posting. It is the one of the most difficult subjects in law I feel to understand. In all honesty it took me a very long time to “get my head around it”. That said, it often takes me a very long time to get my head around anything these days.

With regard to the Amtrak accident, there seems to be some very dark thoughts going on in regard to what may have been the real cause of the incident especially on rail and professional industrial safety website forums. I would not wish to repeat here what those thoughts and postings are and I would not encourage anyone else to repeat what they may have seen or read. However, I am just wondering if other forum members especially in the United States have been party to the same. I am just trying to judge how widespread on the web that situation is. Those thoughts are coming from quarters and people here in the Uk and Europe who normally I find do not indulge in any kind of speculation.

Bill

 

[Falcus]

HiEverybody.


Hi everybody
Wva-usa, you are completely correct in your above comment . Reading what is known as benchmark or landmark rulings by such bodies as the High Court, Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court will give anyone an excellent insight as to how “Duty of Care” is viewed and judged under various legal argument.

However, I do genuinely understand when falcus emphasises “People” and “reasonably” in his posting at #25 of this thread. I do remember in the mid-1980s when I took my first steps into industrial safety me and many others in our first tutorial group had no end arguments with our lecturers over the same two above words that falcus used in his posting. We argued again and again the view that what is considered reasonable care by one person will be seen as unreasonable by another, therefore how can you quantify that in law. We were always told by lecturers that those same arguments go on in every safety course they took, and that situation remains true on tutorial courses right up until today as students grapple with the concept, often with great difficulty.

The truth is that you cannot quantify duty of care as laid out legislation in the way that you can quantify such things as what constitutes murder as against manslaughter. However, duty of care by one person towards another is at the very heart of the legal system(s) in any civilised society. Perhaps the best description of its meaning is as it is laid out in the United Kingdom “Health and Safety at Work Regulations” where in section after section it defines duty of care in terms of both employer and employee must do “everything reasonably practical” to protect the health and safety of all persons in a workplace and any person in the vicinity of that workplace.

In the above, it is the words everything reasonably practical that is the key to understanding duty of care. To put it another way, in everyday life any one person should do all that is reasonably practical to ensure that he does not cause damage or injury to any other person. The foregoing is the way that various investigations and courts judge duty of care.

Therefore falcus , I hope you will feel that I have explained myself better if I have indeed understood what you were questioning when you emphasised “people and reasonably” in your last posting. It is the one of the most difficult subjects in law I feel to understand. In all honesty it took me a very long time to “get my head around it”. That said, it often takes me a very long time to get my head around anything these days.

With regard to the Amtrak accident, there seems to be some very dark thoughts going on in regard to what may have been the real cause of the incident especially on rail and professional industrial safety website forums. I would not wish to repeat here what those thoughts and postings are and I would not encourage anyone else to repeat what they may have seen or read. However, I am just wondering if other forum members especially in the United States have been party to the same. I am just trying to judge how widespread on the web that situation is. Those thoughts are coming from quarters and people here in the Uk and Europe who normally I find do not indulge in any kind of speculation.

Bill

This is better.... I will say it doesn't meet what you had said earlier.... I DO agree (How could I not?) that common law isn't codified (And perhaps I should have listed that as a direct point earlier, so I'll grant you that at least). But you did say a few things I vehemently disagreed with, such as Duty of Care being a constitutional issue, or that there would be laws specifically written or debatable about it. I don't quite see a retraction of those statements in the above and quoted post, but I'll take it at least as an admission of the specifics of a lack there of in light of agreement with wva's post...... As a participant in this debate, I had already gone out of my way to try to prove your own points for or against you, I saw no reason to add to your points as well, hence my challenge, which I give you partial credit for at this point for your "clarification"......

@wva-usa
Thanks for making the one point he was missing, though perhaps next time a greater understanding of the context of not just the issue, but the debate itself might do you justice.....

@anyone else
I will say it again, as much out of tradition as anything else at this point. We still don't know what happened. I'm not surprised there are people with some very dark theories about what happened. There are some very interesting points of evidence surrounding this incident. Hence I think we're jumping the gun to just assume that Amtrak will be held liable, not saying it can't happen, it very well might, but it will all hinge on what comes out of the investigation...... So why don't we wait for that instead of getting ourselves into poorly communicated legal debates?

-Falcus

 

[jordon412]

UPDATE: What we know right now about deadly Amtrak derailment

Time to stir the hornets nest again.

http://news.yahoo.com/know-now-deadly-amtrak-derailment-183617486.html

 

[Falcus]

Naw, that *shouldn't* (Looks around warily) Stir up any hornets.... It just confirms what I've been saying.... We Still don't know what caused the accident....


Some Highlights:

Investigators say preliminary inspections found no problems with the track, the signals or the locomotive.

They've also ruled out a bullet causing a grapefruit-size fracture on the locomotive's windshield and say they're uncertain whether anything struck the train.

WAS THE ENGINEER USING HIS CELLPHONE AT THE CONTROLS?
That's what the NTSB is trying to find out.
The agency says investigators are comparing time stamps from engineer Brandon Bostian's phone records with locomotive data, radio transmissions and surveillance video to see whether the phone was used while the train was in motion.
Phone records show the phone was used to make calls, sent text messages and access data the day of the derailment, but it's unclear when. Bostian's lawyer says the phone was switched off and kept in a bag and he used it afterward only to dial 911.

WHAT WAS THE ENGINEER'S DAY LIKE BEFORE THE CRASH?
The first leg of Bostian's shift on May 12 was particularly grueling, union officials say, with equipment-related delays on his train to Washington shortening his rest break.

...Snip.....


The train reached Washington 26 minutes late, leaving Bostian about an hour to rest, eat and use the restroom before his trip back to New York on the train that eventually derailed.
Bostian told investigators he didn't feel fatigued or ill prior to the derailment, the NTSB says. His lawyer, Robert Goggin, says he had no health issues and wasn't taking any medication.

So again, all thats left is the question: "What DID cause this derailment?" And no resounding answers, *yet*. Not really alot to be stirred up about as far as this is concerned....... The NTSB will eventually *Find* a cause. They won't leave this an un-solved mystery. Whether it was the Engineer, a Rock, or Aliens, they'll find a cause one way or the other that will at least make some kind of sense. What I am most surprised about is this:

That's different from what his lawyer told ABC News the day after the crash. Goggin said Bostian recalled that the train was "pulling into speed-restricted track" but did not remember activating the emergency brake, as depicted on video from inside the cab.

And to highlight the important bit:

as depicted on video from inside the cab.

So, either Yahoo, or whoever did the initial investigative reporting, got this wrong, the Video doesn't show anything inside the cab except the area directly around the E-brake, or they're telling us they have video of him activating the E-Brake but can't see what he's doing prior to the crash, or if anything hits the window? This doesn't seem to make sense to me.....

Anyone here know how the In Cab Camera's are likely to be arranged? And I'm surprised they don't have cam's on the Engineer, particularly for Passenger Trains. I'm on a camera all to myself every time I sit down in the driver seat of a School Bus.....

-Falcus

 

[cascaderailroad]

I know why ... He wuz' goin' too fast ... Ahhhh Duhhh

An' got hit in the windshield by a grapefruit size object at N Philly station

 

[JCitron]

Without quoting any of the above, I will say that this is typical of any NTSB investigation. They will investigate everything the train did before and after the crash. They will collect plastic bits found between the tracks, sheet metal parts, wheels, etc. and put the crashed trains back together. They will then go to the FRA testing center and run crash tests on the equipment, if needed, to determine survivability of the crash. This was used extensively in the crash analysis of some really horrific crashes...

After the rail equipment is determined free of fault, they will test, check and verify the infrastructure, though this is probably going on at the same time by a different team...

And while they do this, they investigate the engineer's day, background, etc. in detail. They will interview him, his family, co-workers, check for drugs, alcohol, obtain his cell phone records to determine use, what he ate the day before, medication he's taking, etc. all to determine if there is anything here to cause a problem.

Once all this is done, which can take up to a year or more, the NTSB will release a report with its findings. The report will contain summaries of the information above, detailed analysis, sometimes a video reconstruction using CAD-train models, and their findings and recommendations.

So rather than jumping the gun we need to wait. This includes the media too who by this time are now interviewing ants on the sidewalk nearby to get the latest scoop on a dying news story.

If anyone is interested in the goings on, or review older NTSB investigations, go here and have a read:

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/default.aspx

For the actual related incident investigation update:

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20150520.aspx

There is also a list of closed investigations with final reports. Keep the snooze button active on your alarm clock because these can get a bit dry and boring to read....

John