Northeast Regional 188 - Accident In Philadelphia

That's an interesting point about rock hits causing or not causing damage. My windshield was hit by a driven golf ball while I was driving by a golf course, with a very loud impact. I immediately pulled over (it was a two-lane local road) to examine the windshield. It was a glancing blow, and there was no indication that anything had hit the windshield, let alone damaged it--and this was an ordinary automobile windshield, not the FRA glazing found on that locomotive.

BandA wrote:Is his union providing his legal defense?

They might but it would simply be goodwill if such be the case.

Provisions under the Landrum-Griffin Act with respect to failure to represent will go only so far - namely "fair and impartial " hearings and investigations.

DutchRailnut wrote:the rock conspiracy started because of pictures of windshield , the FBI investigation narrowed it down to cracks in windshield started appearing during the derailment.
don't forget this train plowed into dirt at close to 100 mph.
Some still like to believe the rock, despite evidence the FBI provided to NTSB ??

My post about the rock was not to say that a rock hit 188, but that the rock STARTED the whole thing. Yes, the engineer is responsible for operating the locomotive properly, but the distraction that was caused by the "rock" incident on the radio could cause someone to lose their train of thought. I don't know about you, but I WAS IN the cab of an E-60 that was hit by a brick at track speed (in the 1970's - this was before "ghetto grates") right in the same area that this incident occurred, and the result was an engineer that nearly died from a severe head injury, and I (luckily) only got some scratches from the broken glass (I was riding in the middle jump seat - I was a travelling electrician at the time). I could see how this engineer thinking that there was a possibility of a rock coming at him from one of the overpasses could distract him and maybe have him forget exactly where he was. Does that exonerate him from all blame? NO, but just like someone who has an "ACCIDENT" in a car that results in a death, because they were distracted by one of their children misbehaving, they would not be CRIMINALLY liable for it.

Noel Weaver wrote:I wonder if anybody on here has experienced a rock or other missel hitting the front of their train at 70, 80, 90, 100 or even faster?

Yes, I have (see the above post).

Jeff Smith wrote: I'd ask for summary judgement of not guilty.

Actually, it would be a Directed Verdict of Not Guilty (if it were a jury trial) (at least in NJ).

I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on the radio... (I actually co-host a legal show with a real lawyer).

I believe that the decision will come down to what the court believes happened. Since Mr Bostian does not know what happened his defense will offer their theory. The prosecutor will offer their theory ... or perhaps take the defense's guess and show that even if it happened that way Mr Bostian is still guilty.

With the lack of memory I believe it will be harder for Mr Bostian to defend his actions. His defense can try to shift blame to others but there was only one person responsible for operating that train at the time of the crash. If he felt that the railway was unsafe he should have used extra diligence in operating his train or refused to operate it at all. Otherwise he is just helping the prosecution prove that the incident was the result of a known risk that he was fully aware of and fully aware of the severity of not managing that risk correctly.

BandA wrote:Hope Amtrak installs those inward-facing and outward facing cameras so we won't have to speculate in the future.

Outward-facing cameras were already standard on Amtrak locomotives. Inward-facing camera installation was actually in progress through the ACS fleet at the time, if not shortly begun afterwards. Regardless of when installations started, 601 was not equipped with inward cameras.

Regarding the definition of "negligence", Pennsylvania law only requires the circumstances to be "recklessly", a lower standard than "willingly" or "knowingly". This is where the prosecution could get its cases. While Ricky Gates was clearly "willingly" or "knowingly" negligent (Gates and Co. were regularly high on alcohol and marijuana while on the road along with violating various operating rules), it doesn't seem Bostian willingly or knowingly caused danger, but could be deemed reckless. That wording and interpretation could seal the fate to a jury.

"Reckless" defined in PA law as: "A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct."

The "consciously disregards" is what the local prosecutor relied on when he decided not to press charges. Said prosecutor (and Mr Bostian's defense) would argue that Mr Bostian did not make a conscious choice to operate a train at 106 MPH into a 50 MPH curve. In order to prove recklessness the next prosecutor must argue the opposite opinion. Mr Bostian does not remember the incident and cannot say "I thought I was past that curve". Although the evidence shows that even during the time he forgot, he was operating the train in a routine fashion (other than the fact that he was approaching a 50 MPH curve and he violated MAS for the track approaching the curve).

With the lack of awareness I believe "grossly negligent" may have a chance of being proven. Supporting the charges of "Involuntary Manslaughter".

I think the bar is a lot higher when you are a professional Engineer, and slip up when doing the job you are trained to do. For example, a pilot caught texting while operating a plane would be judged differently from a civilian caught texting while driving.
As I said , it may not seem fair, but these are the responsibilities any trained person takes on, and should be be recognized and rewarded for. The flip side is they are judged more harshly when they make a mistake.

Whereas I appreciate details over the law within Pennsylvania, it is getting a little too much for a railroad forum, imho, this its not a court of law forum.

Let the courts - its lawyers, judges and jury - argue and decide this case. All I ask is to be kept informed as the case proceeds.

I've read that the 601 is being repaired, is that correct?

Due to litigation and a investigation that is not finished, they can't touch it, its impounded.
so a decision to repair can really not be made, as MofE and Engineering can not do any checking to see if repair is feasible.

As someone who has read as many complete NTSB reports as I have (including this one), I'm surprised not to remember the answer to this question, but isn't it quite uncommon in an air accident for anyone to be charged, even if it is a clear mistake made by the crew? Isn't that part of the way these cases are investigated -- generally eschewing blame so that the truth can be found so as to prevent future similar accidents? Seems unusual to me to attempt criminal charges. Maybe much rarer in an air accident that the crew survives? I guess in this case, too, there is only one engineer, so it is more possible to pin the blame on one person.

ryanov wrote:As someone who has read as many complete NTSB reports as I have (including this one), I'm surprised not to remember the answer to this question, but isn't it quite uncommon in an air accident for anyone to be charged, even if it is a clear mistake made by the crew? Isn't that part of the way these cases are investigated -- generally eschewing blame so that the truth can be found so as to prevent future similar accidents? Seems unusual to me to attempt criminal charges. Maybe much rarer in an air accident that the crew survives? I guess in this case, too, there is only one engineer, so it is more possible to pin the blame on one person.

You realy need to see "SULLY"... I think it'll answer all your questions re: NTSB investigations.