Ok, I guess I misunderstood. Bury the hatchet!:wave: BTW I certainly didn't support suing. Let's end it there, I am overdoing the non-Trainz-relevant posts and need to stop.
Mick
Last edited:
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Surprise
- Thread starter brucem56
- Start date
Ok, I guess I misunderstood. Bury the hatchet!:wave: BTW I certainly didn't support suing. Let's end it there, I am overdoing the non-Trainz-relevant posts and need to stop.
Mick
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
Laughing... A manned station? What are those? Those are pretty rare these days except for the ones in the bigger cities. Most stations are empty platforms with a shelter and a bulletin board for notices.
Yes, the laws are the same, however, outside of Amtrak, the US does not have a national or singly-controlled rail system. It's up to the individual state commuter agency who owns the tracks and the station platforms to clear them. Clearly the Amtrak train was running at speed through the station and sure the engineer most likely saw the snow, but could not slow in time without causing injury to his cargo.
Hi John and everybody.
In the foregoing the legislation dictates that those employers occupying a shared workplace have joint responsibility for the overall safety of the site. Therefore those employers must cooperate and work together in securing a safe environment for all persons working in or attending the site.
To place the above in the context of the incident under discussion, the operators of the locomotive would have a responsibility for the safety of the persons on the station even though it was no part of their operation. The foregoing comes about as they are sharing that part of the rail infrastructure by operating on the tracks which pass through the station even though that station is operated by another company.
Joint site safety responsibility can be a complex matter and many court hours have been spent in legal argument surrounding what constitutes a joint site, but overall the legislation works well.
Again in regard to the incident under discussion, the only way that the operators of the locomotive could avoid incurring full responsibility should claims be brought forward by those caught up in the incident would be to prove that the driver had received full instruction and training in operating the locomotive in hazardous conditions.
In the above, the civil authorities or a court may pass judgement that the locomotive operating company did all that was reasonably possible to avoid such an incident occurring. However, that judgment would very much open up the possibility of the authorities and/or claimants taking direct action against the driver under “employee's duty of care” which is a section of the overall industrial safety legislation.
Bill
John, also here in Britain we do not have a singly controlled national rail network. Network Rail own the infrastructure but various train operating companies run on the track and operate the stations. However, in regard to safety legislation the whole network is covered by what is known as “joint site responsibility” which applies to all workplaces where more than one company operate.Yes, the laws are the same, however, outside of Amtrak, the US does not have a national or singly-controlled rail system. It's up to the individual state commuter agency who owns the tracks and the station platforms to clear them. Clearly the Amtrak train was running at speed through the station and sure the engineer most likely saw the snow, but could not slow in time without causing injury to his cargo.
In the foregoing the legislation dictates that those employers occupying a shared workplace have joint responsibility for the overall safety of the site. Therefore those employers must cooperate and work together in securing a safe environment for all persons working in or attending the site.
To place the above in the context of the incident under discussion, the operators of the locomotive would have a responsibility for the safety of the persons on the station even though it was no part of their operation. The foregoing comes about as they are sharing that part of the rail infrastructure by operating on the tracks which pass through the station even though that station is operated by another company.
Joint site safety responsibility can be a complex matter and many court hours have been spent in legal argument surrounding what constitutes a joint site, but overall the legislation works well.
Again in regard to the incident under discussion, the only way that the operators of the locomotive could avoid incurring full responsibility should claims be brought forward by those caught up in the incident would be to prove that the driver had received full instruction and training in operating the locomotive in hazardous conditions.
In the above, the civil authorities or a court may pass judgement that the locomotive operating company did all that was reasonably possible to avoid such an incident occurring. However, that judgment would very much open up the possibility of the authorities and/or claimants taking direct action against the driver under “employee's duty of care” which is a section of the overall industrial safety legislation.
Bill
Having watched the video about 15 or 16 times now and analysed it with face recognition software, it's fairly easy to deduce that the engineer should be tried for mutiny and hanged, drawn and quartered in public as a lesson to other unobservant engineers. All those on the platform are also partly responsible as, if you look carefully, you can see they're all filming the incident. This is clear proof that they are actually not passengers at all, but foamers posing as passengers. 15-20 years each in the state pen should suffice for them.
the engineer should be tried for mutiny and hanged, drawn and quartered in public
We must be watching different videos because apparently yours has a clear shot of the engineer that identifies him as an ice cold terrorist.
What I want to know is where was the Snow Removal Equipment that could had cleared the tracks of all this snow? Im surprised no one has brought that up because if they had cleared all that snow on the tracks, this could had been avoided. Plus I don't see that the engineer should be sued for this, its not his fault, its the Track Crew who should be sueded because they did not clear the tracks of all that snow.
We must be watching different videos because apparently yours has a clear shot of the engineer that identifies him as an ice cold terrorist.
Mutiny isn't a terrorist offence, only a minor misdemeanour with a stiff penalty.
What I want to know is where was the Snow Removal Equipment that could had cleared the tracks of all this snow? Im surprised no one has brought that up because if they had cleared all that snow on the tracks, this could had been avoided. Plus I don't see that the engineer should be sued for this, its not his fault, its the Track Crew who should be sueded because they did not clear the tracks of all that snow.
The engineer would be ultimately be responsible for whatever happened in this incident regardless of what others did or did not do. When anyone takes the controls of any vehicle that person makes the decision as to whether it is safe for that vehicle to proceed or not. In this incident it may have been that the signals where set so as the locomotive could proceed.
However, undoubtedly the engineer could see the large volume of snow and ice being thrown up by the forward progress of the locomotive as it approached the station. Therefore it could be judged by the enforcement authorities that it was negligence on the engineers part not to have brought the locomotive to a halt in view of the conditions that he/she was again undoubtedly aware of.
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!
So for $20 you can get the bypass and then with the change enjoy a double bacon cheeseburger and a few beers on the way home from the hospital. Life couldn't be better!
Of course, that assumes that the engineer hadn't applied all brakes upon noticing the snow drift. Engineers, no matter how observant and responsive they are, can't stop an engine on a dime. In fact, from watching the video, I couldn't say that he wasn't scheduled to stop anyway.The engineer would be ultimately be responsible for whatever happened in this incident regardless of what others did or did not do. When anyone takes the controls of any vehicle that person makes the decision as to whether it is safe for that vehicle to proceed or not. In this incident it may have been that the signals where set so as the locomotive could proceed.
However, undoubtedly the engineer could see the large volume of snow and ice being thrown up by the forward progress of the locomotive as it approached the station. Therefore it could be judged by the enforcement authorities that it was negligence on the engineers part not to have brought the locomotive to a halt in view of the conditions that he/she was again undoubtedly aware of.
Bill
Hi cessjl and everybody.
http://www.9news.com/news/travel/amtrak-train-knocks-over-commuters-with-snow-wave/423022657
Cressjl, As can read in the above news report, in the incident under discussion which occurred at Rynecliffe station near New York. A rail company "expert" has informed the above news outlet, that the locomotive entered the station at regular speed to “clear the track of snow”.
In carrying out the above action several people were knocked to the ground with one person incurring a head injury. In the foregoing, ether the engineer was instructed by a senior person in management to proceed at that speed, or the engineer personally took that decision.
Whoever took the decision to proceed at that speed without taking into consideration the endangerment such action would cause to those in the station, undoubtedly acted in a negligent manner. Could well be that this rail company's legal departments personnel are now witnessing the the claims from this incident now landing on their desks at regular speed (LOL)
Bill
http://www.9news.com/news/travel/amtrak-train-knocks-over-commuters-with-snow-wave/423022657
Cressjl, As can read in the above news report, in the incident under discussion which occurred at Rynecliffe station near New York. A rail company "expert" has informed the above news outlet, that the locomotive entered the station at regular speed to “clear the track of snow”.
In carrying out the above action several people were knocked to the ground with one person incurring a head injury. In the foregoing, ether the engineer was instructed by a senior person in management to proceed at that speed, or the engineer personally took that decision.
Whoever took the decision to proceed at that speed without taking into consideration the endangerment such action would cause to those in the station, undoubtedly acted in a negligent manner. Could well be that this rail company's legal departments personnel are now witnessing the the claims from this incident now landing on their desks at regular speed (LOL)
Bill
Last edited:
One woman did sue McDonalds over spilling hot coffee on her lap and got money for it. So it can happen.Do you also happen to sue when your coffee is too hot?
Thanks for adding context to the video. Yes, with that in mind, it would appear that reckless endangerment could be alleged.Hi cessjl and everybody.
http://www.9news.com/news/travel/amtrak-train-knocks-over-commuters-with-snow-wave/423022657
Cressjl, As can read in the above news report, in the incident under discussion which occurred at Rynecliffe station near New York. A rail company "expert" has informed the above news outlet, that the locomotive entered the station at regular speed to “clear the track of snow”...
Similar threads
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 463
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 338
- Replies
- 57
- Views
- 5K