Should CSX have to pay? I don't think so. But the jurors decided otherwise. How say you?
I get the feeling we don't know the whole story, either way it's sad when people lose their lives when actions or inactions could have changed the outcome.
some fairly old canon camera stuff, canon lenses, Manfrotto "thingy", 1D MK II converted for IR, and now an M5
Pretty in depth article.
PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Formerly he's gone before apostrophe-gate | Not in gear database: Canon 70-210 3.5-4.5, Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 2x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20
anytime there is a senseless death, and someone involved has money, they're going to pay. Especially with a jury, because despite how some people act, most people still have hearts and emotions and they aren't going to tell a grieving family, "oh, so sad, see you later" when they can make someone "pay" even when it's a difficult case such as this. and it is complicated. apparently for the previous 2 days their trains passed thru and saw them filming there, well they should have at least been more aware or followed their own protocol. On the other hand, a train is not a passenger car. The average person knows jack about them and the physics behind them and it's best they just stay out of their way. It's hard to expect them to act like every other form of transportation. Oh, just slow down a bit, or why didn't they stop?
I'll be surprised if they don't appeal this.
FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
certainly. It's a given they'll appeal this until they win or run out of courts to hear their appeal.
They have pills for that now you know.
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
PhotosGuy wrote in post #18405763
I'll be surprised if they don't appeal this.
Or settle. Here, have $500k and go away. I'm surprised that they found Sarah had no fault. I have to figure that someone standing next to tracks should be looking out for a train. That's just plain stupid. If they wanted to make sure the family got something find Sarah 49% responsible and reach into the deep pockets for the rest.
Jul 20, 2017 08:10 as a reply to gjl711's post |
I think the producer and the company she was working under had told everyone they had permission to be there, which means the train traffic would have been stopped while they shot on the bridge. Lots of people work around lots of potentially dangerous conditions everyday and their employers make sure certain safety conditions are met. In this case the employer lied to them, probably why she was not found at fault.
As a railroad conductor by trade myself I guess I might be slightly biased in my opinions about this matter. But I do think the jury got this one wrong. It must be human nature to point blame to the larger entity in the matter whether they are responsible or not.
chevyzen wrote in post #18405631
You don't keep sending trains over a bridge at 57 MPH without sending someone, when you know already something is happening on or near the tracks that shouldn't be. I'd agree they share in some of the responsibility. I'd be less likely to assign any blame had this occurred on the 1st day, to the RR company.
Problem is that on first day two trains came by the area. The film crew knew that these two trains came by and did not setup on the tracks until after they cleared. So those 2 trains would not have seen the film crew on the tracks when they came by. Sure the film crew may have been near the tracks, but it is totally possible to be near the tracks and not be on railroad property. If these people are not on railroad property nothing can be done to remove them, except by the owner of the property they are on. So the train crew most likely did not report them not because they didn't see them, but because the film crew was not on railroad property at the time they passed.
Aug 03, 2017 11:03 as a reply to Mr_ipsum's post |
FWIW, I don't think you're biased at all. You are objective. Unfortunately, objectivity and even truth itself have no more weight anymore. It's all based on feelings, arrant vindictiveness and rapaciousness, and unwillingness to take responsibility for one's actions. Added to that an 'speak not ill of the dead' taken to extremes—might or might not be the case in this, er, case, but what if it was solely the woman's fault? Not paying attention, a momentary lapse of distraction, or what have you...
'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Aug 13, 2017 13:46 as a reply to Alveric's post |
they don't point to the train, rather set equipment that was sent t flying into her that knocked into the train. she was hardly some texting zombie working her way down the tracks. Solely the woman's fault? I guess if that's your opinion it's your opinion, but I wonder if you even followed the case? thousands, tens of thousands, millions of people work in potentially dangerous conditions every day and they do so because others were to have secured the the work place or even their homes.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.05s
|Latest registered member is digi5studios|
745 guests, 293 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017