Rochester Amtrak casualty

He stopped being a passenger when he stepped off the train on his own and was refused reentry. The threat to passengers and crew was ended. He was at a safe location, being an active, open, manned station. I understand what your saying Mike. But the Law looks strongly on individual responsibility, and intoxication is not an excuse. He was left at an active and manned station. Police do not need to be called unless the person is refusing to comply. OR if his behavior caused such a concern for the safety of other passengers that the Conductor believes that the person needs to be extricated before reaching a safe location, IE: active, open, manned station. Train will be stopped at a specific location such as a highway crossing, and person extricated under Police assistance, and charges pressed, most likely. That's where Police would normally be called to attend. Debate here about this can continue forever. It will be left to the family to file. A Judge to determin if the case has merit. A jury to decide final disposition.

I'm not going to fault the conductor, either. He had to think of the safety of the other passengers, so it makes sense for him to kick a drunken, disorderly fool off the train before another rider was hurt. I would be highly surprised if the conductor hadn't notified the station's staff about the drunk being ejected from the train. And even then, I wouldn't fault the station's staff. They aren't cops or paramedics. They may not be trained to deal with belligerent drunks. For that reason, I strongly doubt any Amtrak employees will face criminal charges over the death. Of course, there may be a lawsuit or two... but a jury will probably take the dead guy's idiotic actions into account and exonerate the defendant(s).

Just saw this today: Schenectady man dies after being ejected from train..

I'm going to bet there's a lawsuit here. While I understand and appreciate that Amtrak can eject a passenger at any time (I've seen it happen, including one time at Wilmington where the Amtrak Police came aboard) it's also my understanding they have to leave an incapacitated passenger (and drunk generally qualifies) in a "safe" situation. In the few cases I've read about that's generally been in custody of the local LEOs. Wonder what happened here.

Tragic and sad case for the family of the victim.

lvrr325 wrote:
If he got into a car and drove into a tree, who's at fault there?

Driving while intoxicated is ILLEGAL in every jurisdiction; public intoxication (as pointed out by another poster above) is not. Of course, no CRIMINAL negligence for what happened, but I believe that Amtrak will not totally slide on this one.

Can anyone answer the question raised by an earlier poster about Amtrak's policy after that Williams Junction incident with the diabetic individual??

Ocala Mike wrote:Driving while intoxicated is ILLEGAL in every jurisdiction; public intoxication (as pointed out by another poster above) is not. Of course, no CRIMINAL negligence for what happened, but I believe that Amtrak will not totally slide on this one.

It is true that New York has no laws against public intoxication, but there are laws against disorderly conduct. That was probably the basis for the conductor ejecting the passenger from the train.

BTW, I've been drunk on Amtrak. (Memorial Day weekend of 2000 comes to mind.) However, I stay well-behaved while intoxicated on the train... so I've had no problems with Amtrak's train crews.

I certainly don't want to feed the American litigation machine any more than the next guy, and my gut sympathy is with the conductor and crew. But there are a few questions that need to be answered before I let the crew off entirely.

First, did this guy still have luggage on the train? Seems to me that if the conductor is essentially throwing him off the train by refusing a reboard, then he at least has to get the guy his stuff. That would apply regardless of how drunk and obnoxious he was. No, this doesn't excuse an attempt to reboard elsewhere (assuming that's what he did). But it does need to be answered.

Second, is there any corroboration for the conductor's characterization of this person as disruptive?

This one hits close to home--I've ridden well over 200,000 miles on Amtrak and have seen my share of disruptive passengers, some of whom have been put off. But I've also been accused of being disruptive myself--for the simple act of returning to my coach seat at 11:30 PM to retrieve a book that I wanted to read in the lounge car. Stone cold sober, by the way. The woman in the next seat got all Pi$$y about me reaching into my bag on the overhead rack (perhaps as much as 15 seconds to pull the book out of a side pocket) and complained to the conductor. He was a good old southern boy, immediately took her side of the dispute without offering me the chance to speak at all, and when I tried to explain what was going on (in a soft, hushed voice appropriate to the setting) started threatening to put me off. Loudly, I might add.

Fact is, we don't have the facts. Let's reserve judgement until we do.

Greg, there is a discussion of this going on here: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 8&start=15
I pretty much agree with you on this.

Exactly; I've seen my share of disorderly passengers on Amtrak and, in each case, I've seen conductors who either defused the situation or called local law enforcement personnel to take the appropriate action. If this passenger's conduct rose to the level of disorderly conduct, I would think the conductor would be obliged to hold the train and call the police. I realize conductors are responsible for the train and its passengers, but there is a question here of "abuse of power."

There's probably going to be plenty of lawsuits on this one. This is unfortunate, because this person has a record a mile long of DUI and Assault. We're not talking about a harmless person, we're talking about a person with a proven track record of causing others harm.

If his prior history would be admitted as evidence or testimony, then perhaps more fair to Amtrak, but, sorry to say, I'm willing to bet the judge won't let it in, and the lawyers will sue for gazillions for 'contributory negligence' of an 'impaired person'.

Locking due to duplicate.

Abuse of Power. Another great catch phrase. I suggest you research the Authority granted to Commom carriers and their Agents by Local, state, and Federal law. Particularly since 9/11 and passage of the Patriot Act. You may be surprised. I can tell you the conductor was well within his Authority to refuse reboarding. The question rasied originally was the liability of leaving an intox. individual on the platform. I believe departing, leaving the individual at an open, manned, safe, Amtrak station will be justified. Once one the ground the person in question became more the responsibility of the Station personel, and again the individuals personal responsibilty for his own actions will be center of the case and look it up if you wish, intoxication is not an exemption from personal responsibnility or culability.

roadster,
your comments and others duly noted, and I agree with, however, unless when the conductor, knowing the inebriated condition of the passenger, saw that he was in the care or custody of someone on the ground, I feel that, unfortunately, the courts may find either negligence or other charges against Amtrak. Had he been definitively in the hands of station or public safety personnel at the time, different story.

roadster wrote:Abuse of Power. Another great catch phrase. I suggest you research the Authority granted to Commom carriers and their Agents by Local, state, and Federal law. Particularly since 9/11 and passage of the Patriot Act. You may be surprised. I can tell you the conductor was well within his Authority to refuse reboarding. The question rasied originally was the liability of leaving an intox. individual on the platform. I believe departing, leaving the individual at an open, manned, safe, Amtrak station will be justified. Once one the ground the person in question became more the responsibility of the Station personel, and again the individuals personal responsibilty for his own actions will be center of the case and look it up if you wish, intoxication is not an exemption from personal responsibnility or culability.

Amen! As it so happens, I was out at a bar in the 315 area code 6 nights ago and a patron was "cut off" after becoming badly inebriated. He claimed that bar had the responsibility to get him home safely because the bar had gotten him drunk! He tried to force reentry and the end result was the drunken fool becoming a "guest" of the Wayne County Sheriff's Dept that night. BTW, this will probably be in the forthcoming issue of The Times Of Wayne County.

So how does this relate to the Amtrak passenger? The law, as Roadster notes, tends to look for individual responsibility, even when drunk. The passenger chose to try jumping on a moving train. Nobody made him do it. If there is indeed a lawsuit, the defending lawyer should be able to argue this point and win the case.

Seriously, how could the station's staff have restrained this guy? They're not trained for it... and certainly there is a risk in confronting a disgruntled, disorderly patron who was just kicked off the train. The conductor was acting in the best interest of his passengers and crew by giving the disorderly passenger the boot, so I just don't see any grounds for negligence. There was no such thing as "custody" in this incident. It's too bad this guy had to die, but trying to blame Amtrak's employees is just ridiculous.

As the manager of the train, the conductor is responsible for the safety of all persons and staff on board the train. It is his soul descretion as to what constitutes disruptive harmful behavior under the guidelines of Amtrak policys proceedures, and Laws governing these operations. Again it's a matter of personal responsibility of the individual. He was reported to be intoxicated, not inebriated. There is a difference. At what point does personal responsibility end and social responsibility begin. Do we hire more police to hold the hands of drunken individuals? Do we expect to be held responsible for everyone elses foolish judgement errors? He was safely on the ground at an active, manned, Amtrak station, where assistance was readily available had he chosen to do so. The courts will consider the mans behavior prior to detraining. the testimony of Amtrak personel as to his condition. The fact that he voluntarily exited the train. That the location was safe to detrain people. That the person had ample opportunities to seek assistance from personel at the station. Now, since we're all mostly shooting in the dark here and relying simply by what was reported by the news media.Since historically our society files litagation over some of the most frivolous arguements. I'd say it's safe to say, there's a good chance there will be some sort of litigation. It will be up to the Judge and jury, if it goes to that point, as to the level of resposibility laid upon Amtrak, its personel, and the individual for making a choice which resulted in his death. I'd say at this point. let the professionals and jury decide. I've had my say.