Bet you weren't expecting that with your morning coffee 
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/c...rs-in-a-wave-of-snow/sharevideo/5361926767001
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/c...rs-in-a-wave-of-snow/sharevideo/5361926767001
Surprise
- Thread starter brucem56
- Start date
Very interesting for Trainzers to watch but you would think the engineer would have been warned in advance there were folks on the platform rather then to have imperiled them (and yes - the folks shouldn't have been there since they should have been warned in advance as well as well).
Ben
Ben
cascaderailroad
New member
Can you say Lawsuit
Well... that's like suing a car owner for splashing you with water when you stand next to a big puddle. You might get something, but you shouldn't have been standing next to the puddle!
cascaderailroad
New member
Yeah ... but you are a paying railroad customer, with a validated RR train ticket, waiting on RR station property, waiting for the RR's train, and possibly there is no escape back off of the platform due to a turnstyle
The RR has a responsibility to make their train stations safe, ice free, salted, and pre-plowed ... not just mow down the passengers on the platform
The RR has a responsibility to make their train stations safe, ice free, salted, and pre-plowed ... not just mow down the passengers on the platform
Last edited:
SuperSpeedMaglev
Wonderfully Old Fashioned
Holy! That must of been a rather.... remarkable experience to say the least...
I thought I was at a train station, not down at the docks.. :hehe:
Do you also happen to sue when your coffee is too hot?
Jeez, I think there might be a position for you in the new government, you have the right attitude. Like, "You can't afford your medical bills? Well, you shouldn't have got cancer."
Yes, because you make a conscious decision to get cancer just like you do choosing to stand next to a big puddle. You should join the government too.
LOL, totally true (like when people hunt pokemons, and walk right in cars, walls, etc.) :hehe:.
// Erik from Sweden
Hi everybody.
As someone who has spent many years trying to prevent industrial accidents, i would have to state that in this incident the railway company will deserve every compensation claim that may be brought forward due to this incident. In the foregoing, here in Britain and throughout Europe when a commercial organisation allows any person(s) onto their premises then the responsibility for those persons safety becomes that of the host organisation.
This incident was easily predictable (prior to by risk assessment) or as the train approached the station on the day. Therefore measures should have been in place to prevent such an occurrence by the station staff and those operating the locomotive. It is not for the waiting passengers on the station to think through what may happen as the locomotive passes, it is for the so called trained railway personnel to use that training, rail experience and general working knowledge to prevent such an occurrence.
The hard packed lumps of snow and ice thrown up may well have caused injury in its own right (especially head injury), but the waiting passengers having to suddenly move quickly on an icy surface would be by far the greatest risk through slipping and falling, again with severe risk of head injury.
So, i would certainly hope that no one did sustain serious injury in the incident, but i hope this cowboy outfit of a rail organisation do get compensation claims out of the occurrence as then they may step up their safety procedures to the benefit of all.
Bill
As someone who has spent many years trying to prevent industrial accidents, i would have to state that in this incident the railway company will deserve every compensation claim that may be brought forward due to this incident. In the foregoing, here in Britain and throughout Europe when a commercial organisation allows any person(s) onto their premises then the responsibility for those persons safety becomes that of the host organisation.
This incident was easily predictable (prior to by risk assessment) or as the train approached the station on the day. Therefore measures should have been in place to prevent such an occurrence by the station staff and those operating the locomotive. It is not for the waiting passengers on the station to think through what may happen as the locomotive passes, it is for the so called trained railway personnel to use that training, rail experience and general working knowledge to prevent such an occurrence.
The hard packed lumps of snow and ice thrown up may well have caused injury in its own right (especially head injury), but the waiting passengers having to suddenly move quickly on an icy surface would be by far the greatest risk through slipping and falling, again with severe risk of head injury.
So, i would certainly hope that no one did sustain serious injury in the incident, but i hope this cowboy outfit of a rail organisation do get compensation claims out of the occurrence as then they may step up their safety procedures to the benefit of all.
Bill
Last edited:
Looking at the video, is this an Amtrak station or one that's operated by a local commuter railroad?
If it's the commuter railroad, then it's not Amtrak's fault since the Amtrak engineer was only driving his train through the station. A train can't slow down suddenly as we know so if the engineer came across this at the last moment, there's nothing he could have done to stop quickly, and in doing so could risk derailing the train and causing worse things to happen.
If it's the commuter railroad, then it's not Amtrak's fault since the Amtrak engineer was only driving his train through the station. A train can't slow down suddenly as we know so if the engineer came across this at the last moment, there's nothing he could have done to stop quickly, and in doing so could risk derailing the train and causing worse things to happen.
Hi everybody.
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
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
Last edited:
Missing the point mate. If you choose to do silly things (like stand next to a puddle on the highway or jump off the roof into your pool) then you deserve whatever associated consequences. Your analogy (in support of the person suing because he got drenched by the puddle) doesn't make sense because people don't choose to get cancer - or ill for that matter.
It was a sarcastic remark because one of my local politicians DID make such an exact statement recently - that you shouldn't fall sick if you can't afford it - in response to a question of rising healthcare costs. He also famously declared that our healthcare is so affordable you could get a heart bypass for $8!