Director Arrogance?
Part 1:
Part 2:
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
WOW! is all I am thinking.
I can see suing the film company but why is she suing the surrounding land owners?
Jerry
Why is she also suing CSX, when CSX had refused to allow it???
Originally Posted by baltimoretrainworks:
I can see suing the film company but why is she suing the surrounding land owners?
Jerry
And the railroad??Really?? How is the railroad AT ALL responsible??
CSX Should sue them back for Trespassing.
We can hope for a rational judge and rational jury. The railroad should be able to
defend with a battalion of competent lawyers...too bad they will have to.
If any of you are really interested in more details about this whole mess, you might want to visit the Railway Preservation News site (RYPN), and look for the multi page thread on this subject. According to the latest info, criminal charges have now been brought against the 4th associate producer, i.e. there are now four of the "producers" apparently charge with all sorts of stuff from manslaughter, to criminal trespassing.
Also, CEXT released the forward-facing video footage to ABC News, which was shown on 20/20, just last week.
You know how it works. CSX should of had a fence. The engine should of had been able to stop on a dime., The surrounding land owners should of had fences. There should of been signs. Deep pocket theory, more like trolling the fish. Sooner or later they will find the money. after viewing the report. Any idiot can see Its the directors fault and that he has a track record of filming where he dos not have permission. As for a rational judge maybe. Jury on the other hand no. The reality someone will settle out of court.
least we forget, these Bollywood folks live in a make believe world, unlike the one we live in.
they have been wronged(in their minds) and it just ain't right! besides that, somebody has $$$$ that some lawyer(s) feels like it should be his/hers-winning is not important-money is driving this.
I hear that song-somebody done somebody wrong song!
Lemmings should not be able to sue a cliff owner.
Originally Posted by rattler21:
It is called the 'Deep Pockets Theory'.
Also known as the "Here's Some Money Now Go away Theory"
jerry
>>And the railroad??Really?? How is the railroad AT ALL responsible??
Because it was there!
This is an exact example of the why's and how's OSHA and other government agencies came into being. You have to sometimes protect "stupid people from themselves". Filming in and around heavy industry can be very unforgiving. My heart goes out to all of the filming crew, as they were probably given the "Do it or your fired", plus no doubt probably threats of being "Black Balled" in that industry, for demanding safety rules to be followed, if they have any in that industry, but I'm sure they do. I think that the whole key to this story, it was a low budget film, but someone, somewhere was no doubt reaping the profits, from the sweat of a few!........................Brandy
I’m surprised so many are asking how the railroad is at fault. Is the total corruption and failure of our legal system when it comes to liability news? Liability suits stopped being about genuine negligence long ago. Rattler21’s post pretty much summed the up the situation with the deep pockets theory. It’s about the best chances for the largest pile of cash, and not about going after those truly to blame. Unfortunately, it is cheaper for most large entities to settle rather than fight a court battle, so the insanity goes on.
Welcome to America and it's legal system 2014. You sue because you can. You sue everyone in site. Railroad, mfr of locomotive...
Our system isn't what it was. Drive you car into a wall at 100 mph and your family will sue that car mfr. Well your ads say it was a safe car.
Pour hot coffee on your lap and settle for millions.
Fall off the absolute top of a ladder and settle for millions.
Just like our hobby isn't the same as in the 50's and 60's neither is the legal system. Common sense does not apply.
Bought a new car lately? How thick is the owners manual compared to the 60 Impala you had. Most of today's are written by lawyers to try to protect the company rather than engineers as they once were.
Times are changing, we may not like them, but the old days are gone...
If we listen closely to the closing comment of the production assistant who was injured, you can see she was coached in what to say and how to say it... namely "due to someone else's NEGLIGENCE". Negligence can take on an extremely broad definition when viewed in a legal context. And all too often, common sense gets thrown out the door when seeking all the possible ways any related party -- either knowingly or unknowingly -- didn't do everything they could have to prevent an accident.
EVERYBODY on that crew knew they were trespassing that day, yet nobody on the production team is taking responsibility for their own actions. Nobody does anymore. And when something terrible happens, folks look for the money trail wherever they can find it. And then they'll be all too quick to say "It's your fault -- not mine. You didn't do enough to protect me from my own stupidity." 
So yeah... The railroad is negligent because they "only" sent an email telling the movie company they couldn't support their request. A lawyer will argue, the railroad officials knew the crew might try to film there... so why didn't they send railroad security personnel out their to prevent filming. And the surrounding land owners? Give us a break. That's pushing it even further, but lawyers will argue land owners didn't post warnings or secure/limit access to the adjacent property that would have made it difficult or impossible to ultimately gain access to the trestle... 'Cause everybody knows how dangerous trains and bridges can be... except for their client(s). 
Nobody wants to see anyone killed or injured -- least of all people who didn't even know all that was going on that day... which is why so much money gets wasted because folks simply don't want to take responsibility for their own actions. People have figured out that it's just easier to blame someone else for their own foolishness. Plain and simple. And lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank -- charging for time whether they win or lose the case. Worse yet, our system even gives them a chance to select a jury that will likely see things their way before a trial even begin! And they'll gladly pay a jury consultant for their services to ensure that happens. The total lack of responsibility just never ends. 
Pushed to extremes... Some days ya just feel like you need a lawyer to defend yourself 'cause you woke up in the morning to live another day.
David
I worked for several law firms. I saw suits that were more about making the lawyers wealthy than they were about compensation for victims.
On the other hand, some suits are legitimate. These suits punish and usually stop manufacturers from making unsafe products such as faulty ignition systems that shut down a car and its airbags, cause recalls of faulty airbags that blow up and have killed and injured people, recall faulty tires, stop poison Chinese candy from being sold, stop all sorts of pollution, etc. The list is very long.
Historically industry has a very poor record of investigating itself and correcting unsafe products. Government has proved unable to regulate companies. It is often only the private law suit that brings the unsafe conditions to light and causes change. Most people don't know how much change has resulted from law suits that has benefited society overall.
In the case of this bridge accident, however, I don't see how anyone but the film company is responsible for this tragic accident. Unfortunately, the only group with money to compensate injured people are CSX and perhaps the landowners. CSX at least will have lots of insurance. The insurance will pay any claims if CSX decides to settle. I don't think CSX should settle but my experience is that most businesses look at the least cost option to end these suits.
Joe
Originally Posted by Rocky Mountaineer:
...yet nobody on the production team is taking responsibility for their own actions. Nobody does anymore. And when something terrible happens, folks look for the money trail wherever they can find it. And then they'll be all too quick to say "It's your fault -- not mine. You didn't do enough to protect me from my own stupidity."
AMEN!
It is a terrible commentary on today's society when someone can be totally arrogant and irresponsible, get someone killed in the process, and then point the finger of blame elsewhere - ANYWHERE - except himself. This was the fault of of a supremely arrogant director who cared only about his precious little movie and didn't give a **** about anything else...not even the safety and well-being of his own crew. He should be charged with Manslaughter and do time.
Originally Posted by Joe Barker:
...In the case of this bridge accident, however, I don't see how anyone but the film company is responsible for this tragic accident.
AMEN - again. 
Assuming that the director made the decision to film on these tracks without consent or any knowledge of when and if trains would occur, how can anyone else be at fault? Did he have any plans on how to safely vacate the track if a train approached, apparently not. The only person being sued or criminally prosecuted should be the director and his company in my opinion.
Art
The Defendants list includes "UNKNOWN CORPORATIONS A-Z"? 
Absolutely freakin' ridiculous! I have ZERO formal law training. But if someone here is so trained and wouldn't mind stepping forward, please enlighten us common folk as to what that means or how it's even allowed. It's stuff like this, where I wish more judges would just throw the case out and send these emtpy-suit attorneys packing to waste someone else's time and money.
Staggers the mind.
David
The general reason to name "John Doe" defendants is that you may not know their identity before you have the opportunity to conduct discovery, and the statute of limitations may expire if you don't name them in your initial filing. If during discovery you find out that more parties were involved, you amend your pleading accordingly.
If you have no legal training, you might consider refraining from drawing inflammatory conclusions from technical matters of legal pleading.
It's the corporate equivalent of "John Doe #1 through #26." Or "a player to be named later." The suit needs to be filed within a certain time frame. Some respondents (they call them "defendants" in that particular document) may not have been identified in time to be named. Understand now?
I once was called as an industrial witness in a court case that involved a guy, standing in a phone booth, on a sidewalk in NYC. A private garbage truck rolled down the hill, mounted the curb, crushed the booth, and broke the guy's legs.
He sued the garbage carter, the manufacturer of the truck, the sub-contractor that made the brakes for the truck manufacturer, the manufacturer of the booth, the Western Electric company, who made the phone, the owner of the apartment building on whose sidewalk the booth was mounted, the City of New York, who owned the land under the sidewalk, the City of New York a second time, because they had issued the permit to allow the private carter to do business in the city, and AT&T, because the guy was talking on a long-distance call at the time he was squashed.
Originally Posted by Professor Chaos:
...
If you have no legal training, you might consider refraining from drawing inflammatory conclusions from technical matters of legal pleading.
...
You mean the way lots of -- but not all -- lawyers tend to work as their normal modus operandi? Many lawyers make inflammatory statements all the time. You know it and I know it.
Thanks for your explanation though... but we could have done without the condescending remarks from one of those so "formally trained" in the profession. I guess you don't like when others play the same game as some formally trained lawyers do without paying all the big bucks to go to law school. I'll stand by all the comments I've made in this thread thus far, thank you very much. It's clearly a profession riddled with a tremendous waste of lots of people's time and money.
As with all professions... there a very good people in the trade, and also some with questionable ethics.
David
Doesn't matter what the legal "nit'wits" call it, it sounds like horse poop to me. I work in the Millwright field and have for some 30 years now. I have seen company's pay out to the "stupid" just to get the suit over with. I've also seen the workers comp. department pay for the same reason even when they know the "Idiot" was in the wrong because it would be cheaper in the end. Very sad day for everyone.
Dan
Originally Posted by baltimoretrainworks:
I can see suing the film company but why is she suing the surrounding land owners?
Jerry
Welcome to today's legal system........sue them all.....let them settle out of court for $$$$$.......not sympathetic with her on suing CSX or landowners.......
Maybe CSX Should sue them all for trespassing.....
Originally Posted by Arthur P. Bloom:
It's the corporate equivalent of "John Doe #1 through #26." Or "a player to be named later." The suit needs to be filed within a certain time frame. Some respondents (the call them "defendants" in that particular document) may not have been identified in time to be named. Understand now?
Thanks for your explanation, Arthur. 
David
Basically, when something like this happens the plaintiff's lawyer goes after anyone who might have anything to do with the case, the idea being that if you cast a wide net you stand a chance of one or more of the defendants offering to settle out of court, to avoid the bother of a long lawsuit that may end up making them look bad, big bad old company ganging up on poor injured victim.
You have to keep in mind that the law isn't based in common sense, I may not be a trained lawyer but I have enough training in law through grad management school to realize that the legal process is about the way to get what you want, and most of it boils down to arguing arcane points of law and trying to capture the other guy in a slip up. With the jury system, it is even more complex, because you have someone suing who very well may have been hurt or killed, and lawyers play on the emotions of the jury, who are ordinary people, who feel sympathy when a lawyer plays up the injuries the victim had.
The worse part is when you are on a jury, common sense doesn't necessarily play into it, because you are told what the law is, how it works, and are told to apply it, no matter what common sense says. I have been on civil juries, and it is frustrating and maddening, because often the way the law is written makes no sense, it was written by and for lawyers as part of the legal process, and as a juror you are expected to 'follow the law', yet it also can be impossible to follow it the way it is written. Classic example, we had an injury case where the jury believed that the victim was not injured directly in the accident, but rather, because of something that happened in the accident, they later on injured themselves using their arm wrong. We tried to get a ruling on what proximate cause meant, could an indirect cause be considered this, and all the judge did was read the law to us, which was about as clear as the mississippi river in flood season (and we had a jury that was full of grad level educated people, analytical people). Want to know something even more screwed up? At least in NJ, they give you absolutely no guidelines to figure out the awards, if you decide someone was hurt, that the other party was liable, you were on your own..and they wonder why they get ridiculous verdicts.
So yeah, you have all kinds of weird things allowed, you are allowed to sue someone with deeper pockets, you can sue the maker of a part for airplanes where a plane crashed because a counterfeit product failed, and argue it was the manufacturers fault because they should have known someone was counterfeiting their parts and stopped it, you get all kinds of things like that. And quite honestly, it has nothing to do with the injured parties, it has to do with a legal system where the law is written by lawyers to their advantage, everything from the arcane terminology the law uses in contracts and such, to in tort law allowing the kind of widespread practices that quite honestly are tantamount to fraud. Judges have the discretion to throw out things like citing the property owners next to the railroad tracks, or citing the railroad, they can throw out BS suits and fine the lawyers bring them, but they rarely do, because judges are lawyers, part of the industry, and they are loathe to alienate the ABA and such.
Not going to blame it all on lawyers, though, many of us should look in the mirror and point the finger at ourselves, and realize we are part of the problem. The same people that go around complaining about tort law, how lawyers are ruining the country, see an ad on Jerry Springer and figure "What the heck, maybe I can make some money out of this", the lawyers wouldn't have clients unless people hired them (don't get me going of the ethics of the legal profession, that bans soliciting for clients but thinks that those ads trolling for accident victims, asbestos victims, that you see on daytime TV routinely are okay...). Politicians like Rick Santorum ranted and raved about the trial lawyer industry, yet his wife had a beef with a Chiropractor and they sued the guy for 10 million, most of it 'pain and suffering'.......
Hopefully in this case they will get a judge smart enough to throw out anyone but the party directly responsible for the mess, the film company that did this. Even though the civil and criminal law aspects of this are different, the fact that the producers and director are being criminally charged should be enough to say where the burden of guilt lies..but I won't hold my breath, an industry that is as lucrative to the legal profession as tort suits is just too tempting, and it is too tempting to judges to let them go through. One note to keep in mind, that it often is different in appeals courts, jury awards against pseudo responsible parties are often thrown out, and the size of awards are routinely cut down as well, but still, it never should get that far.
Originally Posted by bigkid:
The worse part is when you are on a jury, common sense doesn't necessarily play into it, because you are told what the law is, how it works, and are told to apply it, no matter what common sense says. I have been on civil juries, and it is frustrating and maddening, because often the way the law is written makes no sense, it was written by and for lawyers as part of the legal process, and as a juror you are expected to 'follow the law', yet it also can be impossible to follow it the way it is written. Classic example, we had an injury case where the jury believed that the victim was not injured directly in the accident, but rather, because of something that happened in the accident, they later on injured themselves using their arm wrong. We tried to get a ruling on what proximate cause meant, could an indirect cause be considered this, and all the judge did was read the law to us, which was about as clear as the mississippi river in flood season (and we had a jury that was full of grad level educated people, analytical people). Want to know something even more screwed up? At least in NJ, they give you absolutely no guidelines to figure out the awards, if you decide someone was hurt, that the other party was liable, you were on your own..and they wonder why they get ridiculous verdicts.
Unless, of course, you understand jury nullification. Which means all those rules are intended just to intimidate you into buying into their system. But are not fact if you believe justice will not be served by doing so. A jury's purpose is to serve justice, not be a minion of the legal business. I get to go for another round thanksgiving week. I really don't know why they still bother.
You are required to be honest with them in their questions about your fitness for being on a jury and I am quite honest in saying I have no more faith or trust in the legal industry and I will not be its pawn. The only thing it serves is itself. I will not be an enforcer of any drug or gun laws and I will not believe the testimony of a child or an informant simply because they tell me I must.
Spend some time in a court room and it's pretty obvious the biggest liars in the room are the lawyers because the only penalty for them getting caught is loosing their license.
I saw that a jury has ordered CSX to pay $3.9 million to the family of the camera assistant killed in this accident. They concluded that the railroad was 35% responsible for her death. CSX is appealing the decision.
Tom
I haven't too far into the decision yet, but as I understand it right now, much of the case against CSX was they apparently were aware the crew was there by the time that train got to the site and that no brake applications were made until after the incident.
I have no clue if any of that actually happened, but I did read that was part of the contentions. I cringed at what I'd read and thought, "Man, they got CSX if the jury believes it..."
What a bunch of BS. And we wonder why things work the way they do nowadays?
Here's an interesting excerpt from the article too:
"The jury Monday found $11.2 million to be the total value of Jones' life as well as her pain and suffering. Jurors decided CSX - the only defendant on trial - bore 35 percent of the responsibility for Jones' death, making the railroad's share $3.9 million."
I'm sure glad I didn't dream up that formula, 'cause I could never keep a straight face explaining those numbers to anyone. 
So if you ever wondered what "your life" is worth in dollars today, there you have it... says this jury. I wonder what Colonel Steve Austin with all his bionics (i.e., remember The Six Million Dollar Man, played by Lee Majors) would think??? Then again, that WAS the 1970's, and a nice ranch home on an acre of land in most states cost you only $45K back then. I guess Steve Austin would need to be called "The Six BILLION Dollar Man" to give the TV show title some sizzle these days.
Those defense attorneys certainly earned their fee for snagging bottom-of-the-crop jurors from the jury pool on this one. Incredible!
But hey... at the end of the day, somebody needs to be liable. So let's go for the party with deep pockets -- right or wrong. Isn't that the American way nowadays??? 
David
p51 posted:I haven't too far into the decision yet, but as I understand it right now, much of the case against CSX was they apparently were aware the crew was there by the time that train got to the site and that no brake applications were made until after the incident.
I have no clue if any of that actually happened, but I did read that was part of the contentions. I cringed at what I'd read and thought, "Man, they got CSX if the jury believes it..."
P51, I agree in that this is about the only way the railroad could be partially liable. Or the lack of "no trespassing" signs or "private property " signs could be on the list as well.
Steve
My understanding is that the engineer was alleged to not use any brake application until the crew was struck, which was the basis for railroad liability.
Who is liable for the $1000's a in loses every few moments that were incurred by the disruption of the railroad's buisiness?
Appeal? They ought to throw in a countersuit against the estate to recoupe costs just as a point.
Rocky Mountaineer posted:But hey... at the end of the day, somebody needs to be liable. So let's go for the party with deep pockets -- right or wrong. Isn't that the American way nowadays???
David
Well, it very often works that way when a railroad is sued for something somebody not connected with the railroad did. Railroads don't have many friends and they do have a lot of insurance.
Remember guys, this award is sure to be appealed by the RR and substantially reduced. Once again, the only people that get rich here are the lawyers.
"least we forget, these Bollywood folks live in a make believe world, unlike the one we live in.they have been wronged(in their minds) and it just ain't right! besides that, somebody has $$$$ that some lawyer(s) feels like it should be his/hers-winning is not important-money is driving this."
It isn't just Bollywood folks, it is most of the American population, I would bet good money that if some of the posters on here so outraged by this verdict had something horrible happen to them, like for example let's say their kid was killed by the train, they would be suing the railroad, many of those who complain the most about trial lawyers and the cost of lawsuits and how much of them are BS are often the first people to sue (classic example, when in office a certain Senator from Pennsylvania railed about trial lawyers and especially the 'idiotic" pain and suffering suits that netted people millions......said senator's wife was upset at a chiropractor and among other things, sued for 10 million dollars for pain and suffering)
Not going to say I agree with the verdict, but note at least one thing, that judgement represented 35% of the blame. The victims could sue the director and producer of the film, but could they get 20 million + out of them? In civil law like this it rarely is a 100% "they were guilty of negligence", in auto accidents the accident report will assign blame, so for example if someone rear ends you you might end up partly responsible, or if someone t bones you and they decide you could have avoided the accident, you can be found partly liable, etc. I don't fully understand it myself, but it is how civil law operates.
As far as this case goes, the reason they got so much money was the jury as they often do thought they were showing compassion to the person who died and the family, juries are human and they aren't heartless, and in this case likely the jury saw what happened, felt bad for the family of the deceased, and acted that way. It doesn't help that civil juries are not easy, having set on them with things like auto accidents, there are no guidelines, they leave it entirely up to the jury, so it is no wonder the lawyers play it up, appeal to sympathy, because they know juries are expected to come up with a number with no guidelines. I was on a case where a woman was suing after an auto accident, claiming that she had all these injuries, that it kept her from having sex with her husband, that she couldn't play ball with her grandkids (said grandkids, I will add, were in their late teens, early 20's), couldn't reach up to take something from a shelf, etc, it was pathos to say the least (the woman was in her early 60's, looked pretty beat by life, and it was kind of obvious she was looking to get enough money to be able to retire). There was one injury that the defense agreed was likely caused by the accident, a neck injury, so we had to come up with a figure to compensate for that...but no guidelines, nothing, we could have come back with 10 million dollars (we didn't, we based a figure on compensation to try and make her life easier from the neck injury, it was like 15k). Juries in that moment are not monsters, they are trying to figure out difficult situations that the lawmakers and the judges give absolutely zero help to them.
And yep, this was deep pockets, the jury sees a big corporation, and says "oh, they can afford it, or their insurance can", they were told that 35% of the blame was on the railroad and agreed with that, for whatever reasons, and tried to assess what a death is worth (I don't know the law in the state in question; in NJ there is literally no guidelines for the award).
The other thing with these lawsuits that doesn't come out in the outrage is that generally the trial judge will routinely knock down excessive rewards, when you read about the McDonald's case (which wasn't as straightforward as people who cite it claim and some of the 'facts' claimed are not facts of the real case), or other big awards, the plaintiff generally ends up with a much smaller award, if any, judges can throw out an award if they feel it was wrongly decided. I lived in the Bronx for a number of years, and a woman I rode the train with into NYC was married to a guy who handled lawsuits against the city (Bronx Juries being notorious for huge awards), and he routinely decimated the awards Juries gave..not to mention appelate courts will as well, so by the time this is settled it likely will be a much, much smaller award.
I haven't read the details of this particular case, but there could be reasons why the railroad was found negligent, if for example (and this is hypothetical, not in this particular case) the engine in question was operating over the speed limit for that section of track or they found that the windows on the engine were so dirty that the engineer couldn't see people on or near the tracks (assuming that if they could see they might have been able to avoid hitting the person), or if there is supposed to be a watchman on that bridge let's say and one wasn't on duty or was off taking a leak at the time who could have chased them off or warned the engineer in advance, they could be liable (and again, before people rail against me, I am talking hypothetical situations of contributory negligence, not in this case). From what I read I don't understand why the railroad was at fault here at all, it sounds like the film crew trespassed , was on tracks they shouldn't have been on, were told not to film there by the railroad, and they went ahead anyway, but the law and me never mixed well, in grad school business law puzzled me to no end how they think (or don't). It to me does show that the civil tort system needs some serious overhaul, but therein lies the problem, judges are lawyers so don't want to anger fellow lawyers, and legislatures and the like are made up to a large extent by lawyers, and they don't want, for example, to give juries legal guidelines of how to compensate plaintiffs, then go on tv complaining about trial lawyers, while they refuse to help fix the problem.
