Rochester Amtrak casualty

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/art ... |text|Home

"A man who had been an Amtrak passenger on a westbound train headed for Chicago, was found by the tracks this morning in Rochester shortly after the train departed from the station at 320 Central Ave."

Conductor denying passenger reboarding sounds like potential for a lawsuit. What is the policy for getting off and reboarding?

Unless there is a smoking break scheduled for the station there is no reason I've ever heard of to get off at a station you're not scheduled to get off at.

I heard a radio report this morning and they were interviewing a fire or police offical. They stated that the man had been "put off the train by the conductor. There is no information on why that occurred."

New info just broadcast on 1180 radio:

passenger was drunk and being disruptive to other passengers.
he stepped off the train at Rochester,
Conductor did not allow him back on, due to previous drunken behavior.
he may have attemted to reboard the train as it pulled away.

Other than ambulance chasers guaranteed to sue Amtrak for gazillions, what,if any, legal requirement for ensuring the safety of an 'evicted' disruptive, or inebriated passenger does Amtrak have? Aren't they required to at least call the local police in a situation like this?

Usually Police are called to "remove" a disruptive passenger. The Conductor is responsible for safety of the passengers on board the train. Since the individual stepped off on his own choice. The conductors responsibility to make sure he was in a safe area(the Amtrak Station) was satisfied. Refusal to allow him to reboard due to his disruptive behavior was in line with the conductors responsibility for the safety of his passengers on board. As long as he was following Amtrak Policys, there should be little liability. Of course there will be suits. Doesn't mean they're credible. That's left to the courts and jurys. The personal responsibility of the individual who stepped off the train, his disruptive behavior prior, alledged alcohol use, will all come into play. Under the law, intoxication is not an exemption. If you read all of the Democrat and Chronicle story, and Amtrak spokes person explains their policy. This must have been Amtrak 49. Usually the last car is a baggage car.

I see the other side to this argument, and I believe that this case may result in damages against or a settlement paid by Amtrak. The conductor should have allowed the passenger to reboard, then held the train until the local police were called or, at least, called the police while the individual was on the station grounds and before the train left.

An inebriated individual left at an unfamiliar location in the middle of the night without police involvement is a recipe for disaster. He needed to spend the night in the Rochester drunk tank.

Are there no longer ICE agents meeting the trains at the Rochester station? For years there have been federal law enforcement at Rochester for trains as we've discussed before.

The man departed the train voluntarily, at a manned, well lit, open station, where staff assistance was available. Not in the middle of no where. Conductors have a responsibility to the safety of the passengers and staff of their trains and are given the authority to remove, or refuse boarding of individuals they believe pose a risk to the safety of other passengers and staff. By letting him back on the train, posed a risk to other passengers and Amtrak staff. Then having Police to board the trains and further risk injurys in scuffle with Police to re-remove him would be foolish at best, combounding the risk to others. Police are not public baby sitters, and have much more serious crimes to be invovled in. Unless he was presenting a danger to others, there's no cause to call the Police, and Public Intox. has been off the books for over 40 years. Police haven't hauled drunks to the tank for over 40 years, unless other more serious charges were placed, and Rochester PD's holding cells are usually quite full with more serious offenders. Like I said, will there be a civil action? Most likely. Does it have merit in the courts of Law is another matter. As long as Amtrak personel followed policys and proceedures. Their financial liability is greatly reduced.
ICE stopped random checking of Intercity trains last fall.

If conductors are responsible for the safety of passengers, when, exactly, did this individual cease to be a passenger? Wasn't the conductor also responsible for his safety?

I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on tv, but I believe this is possibly a wrongful death case based on the theory of "duty of care" by Amtrak.

Ocala Mike wrote:If conductors are responsible for the safety of passengers, when, exactly, did this individual cease to be a passenger? Wasn't the conductor also responsible for his safety?

I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on tv, but I believe this is possibly a wrongful death case based on the theory of "duty of care" by Amtrak.

Mike,
read this thread:
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 28&t=92958
all your questions are answered there.
Scot

Your link is back to this very thread! Interesting.

How about this: "A common carrier is required to act with the utmost care, skill, and diligence to protect the safety of its passengers as may be mandated by the type of transportation provided and the risk of danger inherent in it."

I would argue that Amtrak is a common carrier, and failed to protect the safety of the late Mr. Zabawczuk. Wasn't there a case a few years back where some minors were put off a train hundreds of miles from their destination, albeit in the custody of police, because they were allegedly creating a disturbance? Wonder how that one turned out for the conductor and the kids. At least the conductor in that case had the involvement of the local gendarmes.

After reading the article, I'll just say that it sounds like the "removed passenger" was causing such disruption
that keeping him off the train would have been for the greater good of the REST of the remaining people on
the train. I wouldn't think any conductor worth his salt would compromise the safety of everyone else by not
tossing this guy off of his train. The guy chose to get toasted, be disruptive.....got booted as a result of his
actions, and subsequently (and unfortunately) killed himself by apparently trying to jump back on once it was
moving. To me, he sealed his own fate......bummer, but it shouldn't be on the conductor.

Charlie

OK, at one point it was policy to remain with the (former) passenger until the police arrive. This was stated by Amtrak when the Williams Police Department had to deal with Roosevelt Sims running off into the woods at Williams Junction back in 2007. Has this changed?

EDITED to correct Mr. Sims first name

One out of context quote does not a law make nor liabilty create. Bottom line, if the guy had been sober this wouldn't have happened. If he got into a car and drove into a tree, who's at fault there? So he tried to jump on a moving train instead.