Hi everybody.
John, apologies but i cannot agree with you in this one. we need to look first at industrial safety legislation in which i believe the legislation is similar in Europe and the USA. That legislation states that “it is the duty of every employer to ensure that any operation carried out does not endanger persons in the vicinity of that operation(s)”.
In the above, if the station where this incident occurred was staffed, then it would have been the duty of those staff to ensure that waiting passengers could not be endangered by locomotives traveling through the station with consideration to the conditions. In that, all the staff need to have done was to ensure that all persons moved well back to the rear of the platform or if possible into station waiting rooms etc.
In regard to the operation of the locomotive, it is the responsibility of any driver (of any vehicle) to ensure that he/she is aware of dangers that vehicle may cause to persons in the vicinity of its operation. In the foregoing the driver/engineer should have been well aware of the progress in terms of the journey he/she was making and therefore the approach of stations where persons could be at risk by the locomotives movement.
In the above, the driver of this locomotive could undoubtedly see the the huge movement of snow and ice being caused by the vehicle's forward progress. Therefore, that driver had an obligation under an employee's duty of care legislation to ensure that those on the platform of the station he/she was approaching where not put at risk.
Two courses of action would have been open to the above driver. The first would be to ensure that the station staff (if it was a manned station) were made aware of the locomotives approach so as they could ensure the safety of those on the platform. The second course of action would have been for the driver to approach the station at a slow speed and be prepared to stop if he/she could see persons on the platform that would be endangered by the locomotives progress through.
The second of the foregoing actions would have been essential if the driver was unsure if the station staff had been made aware of his approach or she/he had knowledge that the station was not staffed. Undoubtedly when all the above is considered any fair minded person or industrial court would in my opinion make a judgement that despite the poor conditions it was negligence that caused the endangerment of those persons on station platform.
Bill