UPDATED!!!!! CP being sued in Supreme court of WI following train / car accident!

It was law enforcement's job to keep the tracks clear of vehicles/operators that do not recognize what the presence of a railroad crossing means with regard to the safety of all in the vehicle and the hazards of stopping on the tracks.

Why does not the article mention who won the original case in front of the Wisconsin Circuit court. Did the case go to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals or did the Supreme court pick it up the appeal directly from the Circuit court. The train in the video certainly was not going the posted speed limit of 50 MPH and it was stated on the day of the crash the train was traveling about the same speed.

From the article we do not know how the car became stuck on the tracks or if it became stuck before the lights and gates came down. The article/video does infer the father left the child in the car on the tracks and then came back.

Some people are too stupid and just rob everyone else's oxygen. Driving a minivan should have been the tip.

Was that last comment necessary!

No Denny, it certainly was not.

Paul

Well, I am not on the side of the railroad.  After being notified of the potential hazard of crowds and traffic from the parade, the railroad slowed trains to 50 MPH?  Oh, come on!  A more prudent course would have been to instruct trains to reduce speed to 20 MPH, whistle freely, and ring the bell between two mile posts during a specified time interval due to the local parade and celebration.  Slowing from 60 to 50 is cavalier disregard for public safety, and is something we might expect from Jay Gould in 1901, not something we should expect in the current age.  

But, then, there is the matter of getting the van stuck on the tracks.  There is obviously some negligence there, as vans should cross the tracks without getting stuck if driven properly at a designated crossing.

So, nobody has a polished halo in this one, but the railroad may have had an opportunity to take measures to safeguard the public and failed to do so.  If so, shame on them.  Presumably, the town notified the railroad in advance and received some assurance from the railroad that proper measures would be taken.  If not, then shame on the town too, and they get most of the blame for this.  You can't call a railroad and tell them that you're going to be having a parade in a couple of hours.

Don't worry -- the three attorneys will probably find out to what degree the driver, the railroad, and the town were negligent.  This time, they will be the ones who will actually dig up all the facts.

Hey Tom, I sent you a couple emails but you must not have received them.. maybe the spam folder? Or you just ignoring me?

So a guy gets his minivan stuck on railroad tracks,leaves the vehicle with a child in it. Then a cop the kid and driver get hit by the train while in the minivan. Who is negligent? The railroad because they have more money.  

Was the father arrested for endangering the welfare of a child?

Sorry, Doug.  I'm a Presiding Judge during elections and we just had the primary in Texas.  I'll email you.

I guess its that old saying  "there's no fixing stupid".

"The railroad argued that federal rules didn't require it, and the parade posed only a potential hazard."

Is that the best the railroad's lawyers can do?  "potential hazard"?  Given how railroads place so much emphasis on employee safety, this sounds pretty lame to me.  Laughable, in fact. 

The railroad was given due warning, had an opportunity to display a sense of public responsibility and totally blew it! 

I simply don't understand the mindset of the driver of the minivan. 

Any experienced driver should know that you never, ever, stop on a railroad track. And why did the driver leave the child in the van?

I wonder if the railroad has countersued the minivan driver for negligence?

Jim

Remember who is running CP now.  Anyway, this will enter the Federal System, and my gut feeling is that Federal Law will trump state law.

But there is something which gets to me.  Why is it it has gotten to the point things like parades, races, bike runs, et. al., seem to take over towns today.  In some towns, there is some sort of even tying up major roads EVERY WEEK.  It is time these events obtain their own "Jurastic Park" for getting this stuff off public ROW.

The answer is simple - money.  Events draw visitors into towns.  The merchants get more sales which increases both sales and income tax revenue for the town.  There is also an element of civic pride and competition with the next town town down the road.

I suspect that the train was traveling far less than 50 mph when it hit the van.  A train hitting a van at 50 mph would have probably completely destroyed it killing everyone inside.  Don't modern trains have data recorders that record speed, etc., and can tell when the brakes were applied?  

I have a hard time seeing why this accident was the railroad's fault unless the crossing gates failed.  The van should never have stopped on the tracks.  The police officer father, assuming he was the driver, should have known not to attempt to drive across tracks unless he had clearance to get the van completely off the tracks on the other side.  I also wonder why he got back into the van to attempt to drive it off the tracks instead of just getting the child out of the van and getting clear.  There are a lot of unanswered questions in this story.

Joe

My concern is the local governments getting back all the money it actually costs to run these events.  Road closures.  Extra first responders, and so on. 

If governments placed the money burden on these events as stock ownered railroads do when a special train is on its property, most of these events would not happen.  Translation:  Most of these events are indirectly subsidized by the government.  (Hotel taxes for these type of events don't count.)

quote:

(Hotel taxes for these type of events don't count.)

1 - Why not?

2 - We often read that "government should be run like a business".

It can't. The government is not there to make a profit. It's there to provide services, whether they loose money, or a self sufficient.
The problem with privatizing portions of government functions is that only profitable services can be privatized. That leaves the government even further in the hole with what's left.

I don't think it makes any difference who's a fault. If there's a  jury most are going to be sympathetic toward the injured person. .   The only way the railway is going to win this one is.... perhaps the judge is a railroad fan...

I agree with Number 90, we really don't know what took place. Who notified the railroad, what was said.....etc.... just my 2 cents.

I must live in a different universe.  

I often drive over a CSX crossing the DC area on the Capital sub.  There are two tracks at this crossing.  The line hosts MARC trains that are moving at speed, during rush hour.  But at rush hour, traffic often backs up past the crossing.  It is all too common to see drivers inch forward onto the track.  Almost every time this happens, I get honked at, fingered and yelled at if I don't pull forward onto the track. Sometimes drivers from the next lane over will move onto the track in front of me to gain a car length.

When this happens, I'm always amazed there hasn't been a disaster at this crossing.  It has to be a matter of time before a MARC train nails a car/truck/minivan at that location.

Bob

I too have had momentary attacks of the stupids.  Thankfully none of them have involved trains or lawyers.   

Nathan

I read the article, but I didn't see what the verdict of the lower courts was. It had to have gone against the plaintiffs / victims, which would be the correct ruling.

Just because the railroad was "notified" of the parade, does not absolve people crossing the tracks of responsibility for their own safety.

I don't expect the railroad to lose this one.

The UP puts out an order for extra bell and whistle. No speed reductions.

The Missouri Pacific used to put out a speed reduction for town events that they were told about.

So, say the order states to slow down to 25mph and a train still hits someone or something, then what? 

We used to get the dispatcher telling us about trespassers reported walking along the tracks 20 miles ahead, and slow down at that area and be on the look out.

So maybe an hour later you get to that area and slow down from 50 to 45mph. Is that slow enough, is 50 to 20 slow enough, if someone or something got hit and you were doing 1mph, was that slow enough?

I told the dispatcher that they have to give a speed or put out to use extra bell and whistle at a certain location. That is the only instructions we get now, extra bell and whistle and report trespassers who are on or to near the tracks.

Dan

If you manage to get the train to slow down enough for the parade, it will block the crossing for half an hour. That's not a good solution either.

The train can't get out of your way. YOU have to get out of its way.

Here is the original story on the accident:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/45982632.html

Story about court ruling

http://www.jsonline.com/news/w...673z1-227676971.html

News story a few days ago!

http://www.wisn.com/news/south...-supreme-ct/24982124

Hopefully these will answer some of your questions!

Will keep you guys updated!

I've just seen this article on the BBC news showing a near miss in California. Would the rail company have been blamed if the man had been splatted? 

None of the articles submitted by Yardmaster explain how the minivan got stuck on the tracks.

Nicole, it should be filed under "thinning the herd".

Sorry, but you can scream, "The railroad's negligent!" at the oncoming train all you want, but the train is still going to win in the grand scheme...

Regardless of how the van got stuck on the tracks, that driver should have taken his child, abandoned the van, gotten away from the tracks, and called 9-1-1.

You don't leave your kid in a burning building and come back for him later. Why would you leave him in a van that was disabled on railroad tracks?

In fact, why doesn't railroad awareness use the metaphor of a burning building to help people understand the danger of being stuck on a railroad track?

This was in an article about how the minivan got stuck on the tracks!

The couple, Partenfelders, were in 2 separate cars

The West Allis couple were traveling in separate cars to the May 25 parade on Juneau Boulevard. Partenfelder said cars in front of him stopped suddenly to let people out. Ensley-Partenfelder's minivan was stopped on the tracks. When she saw a train coming, she turned the van's wheels to maneuver around her husband's vehicle, and became stuck on the rails.

I would hope that the courts don't find the railroad at fault.  I don't see how anyone can ignore the fact that the driver has the responsibility to not stop on the tracks, period.

Art 

A won for the railroads!

Supreme court sides with the railroad!

http://www.wisn.com/news/wis-s...ove/27087740#!bj0ZAM

I'm glad that the railroad was not held responsible for the bad driving of the plaintiffs.  However, I still think that there is a lesson here for communities and railroads to voluntarily work with each other to better reduce the likelihood of this ever being repeated.

I am glad that the court sided with the railroad in this.  People shouldn't drive on the tracks unless they have enough space to get completely clear on the other side.  Unfortunately, many people ignore this safety precaution.  

It doesn't appear that the mini van was participating in the parade when this happened.  It was just backed up by traffic.  

I am aslo glad that everyone lived and I am sorry that the police officer was injured.

Joe