by Gilbert B Norman
I must say it is interesting how provisions of a bilateral agreement that by its nature is exempt from public disclosure, i.e. "sealed", is all over the media.
Yes, the Amended Agreements in which Amtrak and most roads entered into starting during 1973, do provide for self-indemnification, or "no-fault". Those Agreements replaced those in force on A-Day where the railroad assumed all liability (paid for of course with a substantial add-on).
Those provisions can be overridden if an injured party can establish "Gross Negligence", such as Messrs. Lurker, Meehan, and MMI, all immediately note, was established at Chase. Obviously the injured parties, Amtrak believing itself to be one of such, will seek a Gross Negligence ruling (and no doubt other parties will seek its overturn on appeal and here beginneth the legal merry go round with the taximeters a tickin').
But Step #1 is establishing fault.
Yes, the Amended Agreements in which Amtrak and most roads entered into starting during 1973, do provide for self-indemnification, or "no-fault". Those Agreements replaced those in force on A-Day where the railroad assumed all liability (paid for of course with a substantial add-on).
Those provisions can be overridden if an injured party can establish "Gross Negligence", such as Messrs. Lurker, Meehan, and MMI, all immediately note, was established at Chase. Obviously the injured parties, Amtrak believing itself to be one of such, will seek a Gross Negligence ruling (and no doubt other parties will seek its overturn on appeal and here beginneth the legal merry go round with the taximeters a tickin').
But Step #1 is establishing fault.