Rochester Amtrak casualty

Worth noting that the drunk trespassers that chose to board the Acela at BOS and electrocuted themselves still got plenty of money from Amtrak. I don't think the issue turns on the "chose/didn't choose" fact, but rather on the fact that the BOS incident was basically an attractive nuisance case, while the Rochester case was not. Attractive nuisance is a concept originated under CB&Q v. Krayenbuhl, were Krayenbuhl, a child, wandered onto CB&Q property after hours, started playing on the un-attended turn table, and lost his leg. The courts said CB&Q should have known children could happen upon the turntable and hurt themself, and a fence or lock would've been appropriate here.

CarterB wrote: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'.

Contributory negligence will likely be an Amtrak defense if it is allowed under NY State law. It means the injured person contributed to his injury through his own negligence, likely so in this instance (1) voluntary inebriation and (2) attempt to board a moving train, and thus the injured person (or his survivors in this case) is not entitled to compensation. New Jersey where I live is a comparative negligence state where the plaintiff's and the defendant's negligence is evaluated and any recovery of damages adjusted accordingly.

This incident and the potential for Amtrak to be held liable to someone illustrates the way the tort law system (among others) is broken in this country. The concept of personal responsibility for ones own unwise actions is largely gone.

Tadman wrote:Worth noting that the drunk trespassers that chose to board the Acela at BOS and electrocuted themselves still got plenty of money from Amtrak. I don't think the issue turns on the "chose/didn't choose" fact, but rather on the fact that the BOS incident was basically an attractive nuisance case, while the Rochester case was not. Attractive nuisance is a concept originated under CB&Q v. Krayenbuhl, were Krayenbuhl, a child, wandered onto CB&Q property after hours, started playing on the un-attended turn table, and lost his leg. The courts said CB&Q should have known children could happen upon the turntable and hurt themself, and a fence or lock would've been appropriate here.

It's also worth noting a gentleman who stepped in front of a train and attempted to kill himself lived, sued and the engineer (who trained me) was found 50% culpable. He still kept his job. All of the questions about negligence, abuse of power, blah blah are all very irrelevant. A lawsuit will most likely get filed, and a settlement will be reached, regardless of whether the conductor did or didn't follow policy.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentSe ... 1337896121

As for the conductor, as long as he followed policy (and I know the policy,) he'll have no problems, even if the railroad is found culpable.

After discussion with mod's, moved to Amtrak.

So far this has been a pretty good discussion, as opposed to the usual trespasser fatality / crossing violation threads we get. Thanks to all.

My view; there's a lot we don't know yet about the situation pending investigation. I'm not against speculation, but let's recognize that at this point it's just that.

Thanks again,

Jeff

In the "good old days" of open vestibules or dutch doors and full crews, train crews rode the vestibules leaving stations so that they could watch for folks seeking to jump on after the train was rolling and could dump the air or signal a stop if someone risked life and limb to catch the departing train.

Anyone know if this is still in the rulebooks?

I will note for anyone suggesting that the station crew or others attempt to restrain the man, that also is fraught with legal peril. Unless you're a LEO, you have a very good chance of getting charged with assault (or other charges) if you attempt to restrain someone. It's one reason why stores tend to instructor their employees to NOT try to keep a shoplifter there, since it can backfire.

This is a tragedy, yes, lawsuits will be filed, I'm sure money will change hands. But the end result is it won't help this guy, or really his family. No sum of money will change what they're feeling now.

I'll be curious to follow this incident though as it unfolds further.

What Greg said, above. I'm curious mostly about whether or not Amtrak "tweaks" its policies regarding "rules of engagement" with passengers on board trains and/or in and around station areas. Maybe their conductors need to have LEO status, but if they don't have that status, policies on when to coordinate with local law enforcement personnel need to be perfected, I would think.

StLouSteve wrote:...train crews rode the vestibules leaving stations so that they could watch for folks seeking to jump on after the train was rolling

There are enough videos out there to clearly establish such practice is an Amtrak Rule. After the January 16, 1995 incident at Highland Park IL on the C&NW resulting in serious injuries to a famous musician whose recordings I will not buy, concerts I will not attend, and when WFMT 98.7 airs her music, my radio gets tuned to KLIK, the practice of a train crew member standing by an open vestibule until the train has left the platform was insitiuted - not only on the C&NW (UP as successor) but also on any other road holding a METRA Operating Agreement

Ocala Mike wrote:What Greg said, above. I'm curious mostly about whether or not Amtrak "tweaks" its policies regarding "rules of engagement" with passengers on board trains and/or in and around station areas. Maybe their conductors need to have LEO status, but if they don't have that status, policies on when to coordinate with local law enforcement personnel need to be perfected, I would think.

What would this actually solve? It would require adding several hundred new Federal Law Enforcement Officers (the conductors) and retraining them to something they most likely have no background in, and unless you plan to hold suspects in the baggage car until you reach Chicago or wherever you still need to turn them over to someone at the next station. All it would do is add even more things that the conductor has to deal with. If there were a need to have an LEO on every train at all times that could be done by Amtrak Police, or perhaps TSA. Having the conductors enforce laws beyond what they already do would also have to cross some Union Shop lines as well one would think.

joshuahouse wrote:What would this actually solve? It would require adding several hundred new Federal Law Enforcement Officers (the conductors) and retraining them to something they most likely have no background in, and unless you plan to hold suspects in the baggage car until you reach Chicago or wherever you still need to turn them over to someone at the next station. All it would do is add even more things that the conductor has to deal with. If there were a need to have an LEO on every train at all times that could be done by Amtrak Police, or perhaps TSA. Having the conductors enforce laws beyond what they already do would also have to cross some Union Shop lines as well one would think.

Agreed. Conductors already have their hands full with taking care of the passengers on the train. Turning them into cops would distract conductors from the needs of their passengers. And if we're gonna turn conductors into cops, will bars and restaurants that serve alcohol have to keep LEOs on the premises to "protect" drunks form themselves when they leave or are ejected? While Amtrak is owned by the federal gov't, it is a corporation. And last I knew, corporations could deny service for unruly behavior. What happened to the Amtak passenger after being kicked off the train, based on what I've read to date, is his fault.

I realize it is not realistic or desirable to make conductors LEO's. What I am curious about, however, is EXACTLY what procedures do conductors follow when they require law enforcement assistance on the route. Do they coordinate with Amtrak Police by phone or radio, or simply call 911 from the train for whatever emergency respondents are nearby? Also, what guidelines or rules do they follow in deciding when to call for law enforcement assistance?

We had an incident in the middle of the night on a S/B Silver Meteor where there was a disturbance in the cafe car where some "youths" didn't want the attendant to close up shop. At a stop in NC, 4 or 5 local police got on the train and removed them. As far as I know, they may still be the guests of the Tarheel State!

Usually the conductor will have the engineer tone out the Dsp. and request Police meet the train at a specific location. IE: serious incident or medical emergency, they'd set up meet at a highway crossing. If Conductor feels he can maintain control of the situation untill the next service stop, they'll have the Police meet them there. They can also contact Amtrak Managers (in this case at Renselear, NY.)and Police via company cel. phone to file report or ask for further claification if needed.

Tadman wrote:Worth noting that the drunk trespassers that chose to board the Acela at BOS and electrocuted themselves still got plenty of money from Amtrak. I don't think the issue turns on the "chose/didn't choose" fact, but rather on the fact that the BOS incident was basically an attractive nuisance case, while the Rochester case was not. Attractive nuisance is a concept originated under CB&Q v. Krayenbuhl, were Krayenbuhl, a child, wandered onto CB&Q property after hours, started playing on the un-attended turn table, and lost his leg. The courts said CB&Q should have known children could happen upon the turntable and hurt themself, and a fence or lock would've been appropriate here.

I am not a Lawyer, I only play one on the Radio..(The Law & You with Bob and Mark - Fridays at 5pm on WIFI -AM 1460 - Philadelphia (Bob actually IS a Lawyer))., but as I understand the concept of Attractive nuisance, It applies to CHILDREN!!! Now I must agree that the drunken idiot was probably acting like a child, but that unfortunately does not make him a child...

Ocala Mike wrote:held the train until the local police were called

Not sure if you've familiar with the empire corridor, but it's stacked with freight trains 24 hours a day. Amtrak has to depart at certain times or be delayed quite a bit.

As for liability, there is none, the guy was obviously angry for getting kicked off & possibly tried to climb on then fell. I've seen someone get removed at least once on every system i've ever ridden. They are never happy about it.

Don't be so quick to say there is no liability. There ought not be but . . . That result heavily depends on (1) Amtrak deciding to roll the dice and let the case go to trial rather than settling, (2) if it goes to trial a judge that is willing to dismiss the case based on the preliminary motions (not many of those judges), and (3) a jury that will not award damages. In many instances the jurors view awarding damages as a way to get back at the "man" or the "establishment" and will do so regardless of the merits. And for that result see (2) - not many judges willing to reduce a jury verdict either.