Rochester Amtrak casualty

While I admit I don't know the details, I'm surprised law enforcement (Amtrak police or state/local police) weren't called into do the actual removal, anyway. What if the guy decides to take a swing at the conductor?

I was on a Metro-North train that was delayed (somebody had stuck a utility pole under the 3rd rail and across the tracks), and a passenger, annoyed at the delay, punched a conductor. We waited at the next stop (doors closed) until the M-N police showed up to take him away. The rest of us were annoyed (double delay), but on the whole thought M-N was Doing The Right Thing(tm).

My understanding (which very well may be wrong) is that the passenger stepped off the train himself at which point the conductor refused to let him reboard. The conductor did not attempt to remove him. (and again, unless he has legal authority I'm unaware of, in most cases the conductor would not be legally allowed to touch the passenger.)

amm in ny wrote:While I admit I don't know the details, I'm surprised law enforcement (Amtrak police or state/local police) weren't called into do the actual removal, anyway. What if the guy decides to take a swing at the conductor?

I was on a Metro-North train that was delayed (somebody had stuck a utility pole under the 3rd rail and across the tracks), and a passenger, annoyed at the delay, punched a conductor. We waited at the next stop (doors closed) until the M-N police showed up to take him away. The rest of us were annoyed (double delay), but on the whole thought M-N was Doing The Right Thing(tm).

Again, the train could have easily been delayed several hours if they missed their departure slot. As far as removal of disorderly passenger, the train crew can only escort the passenger off, not by force, only the cops are technically allowed to do that.

You keep mentioning that the train could have been delayed by several hours if they missed their departure slot as if that should be allowed to factor into the decision. It shouldn't. If the passenger was truly in a safe position, then there was no reason for Amtrak to wait. However, if the passenger was NOT in a safe position, a delay should not be a factor in making sure the passenger is safe.

I agree 100% with what Greg said, above. I think the most troubling aspect of all this is the idea that the act of stepping off the train voluntarily (I have done so many times at "smoke stops" even though I don't smoke) resulted in the victim's now being considered a NON-PASSENGER and subject to the conductor's "approval" for whether he is allowed to reboard or not.

IF I HAND A TICKET TO A CONDUCTOR, GET A SEAT CHECK, AND LEAVE MY LUGGAGE AT MY SEAT, I DAMN SURE DON'T WANT TO THINK THAT HE MAY NOT LET ME BACK ON THE TRAIN AFTER I GET OFF TO STRETCH MY LEGS IF HE DOESN'T LIKE SOMETHING ABOUT MY BEHAVIOR.

Granted, the conductor may have had probable cause in this instance, but I still think it's a slippery slope defining what Amtrak's obligations are towards a fare-paying passenger.

I'd be willing to bet the store that Amtrak is found at least partly liable for the situation.

Ocala Mike wrote:I agree 100% with what Greg said, above. I think the most troubling aspect of all this is the idea that the act of stepping off the train voluntarily (I have done so many times at "smoke stops" even though I don't smoke) resulted in the victim's now being considered a NON-PASSENGER and subject to the conductor's "approval" for whether he is allowed to reboard or not.

IF I HAND A TICKET TO A CONDUCTOR, GET A SEAT CHECK, AND LEAVE MY LUGGAGE AT MY SEAT, I DAMN SURE DON'T WANT TO THINK THAT HE MAY NOT LET ME BACK ON THE TRAIN AFTER I GET OFF TO STRETCH MY LEGS IF HE DOESN'T LIKE SOMETHING ABOUT MY BEHAVIOR.

Granted, the conductor may have had probable cause in this instance, but I still think it's a slippery slope defining what Amtrak's obligations are towards a fare-paying passenger.

If you're really concerned, perhaps you should sit on the train and enjoy the ride. If you do that, you WON'T have to think the conductor may or may not let you back on the train.

There is no slippery slope. There are pages of policy which address the who, what, were, when and why. Is every single possible and/or probable scenario addressed? Of course not. For the general public, the Conditions of Carriage (previously posted) sum it up best.

As for what the employees are empowered to do, let's just say, I trust no one on this board should have to worry about it.

I'm trying to think like an attorney might think should this incident ever rise to the level of litigation. Such an attorney, if he's worth his salt, will examine Amtrak's policy and the conductor's actions with a fine tooth comb. As for me, I am a model of civility on board any public conveyance, and hate to see people stupidly "acting out."

It's pretty clear that if you read the terms on Amtrak's website, (I found them in 30 seconds) that "Amtrak may refuse to carry passengers ... Whose conduct is objectionable (such as, but not limited to, being under the influence of alcohol or narcotics)" and "Amtrak employees ... may remove such a passenger from the train at any inhabited place, as necessary under the circumstances".

So it looks like the issue does not turn on your seat check or your baggage location. If you're under the influence, they may refuse to carry you or may remove you once on board. As a condition of buying a ticket, you accept these policies. Now you can still challenge them if you feel they are discriminatory or unconstitutional or something like that, but you can't just challenge them as "unfair in your book".


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

Tadman wrote:It's pretty clear that if you read the terms on Amtrak's website, (I found them in 30 seconds) that "Amtrak may refuse to carry passengers ... Whose conduct is objectionable (such as, but not limited to, being under the influence of alcohol or narcotics)" and "Amtrak employees ... may remove such a passenger from the train at any inhabited place, as necessary under the circumstances".

So it looks like the issue does not turn on your seat check or your baggage location. If you're under the influence, they may refuse to carry you or may remove you once on board. As a condition of buying a ticket, you accept these policies. Now you can still challenge them if you feel they are discriminatory or unconstitutional or something like that, but you can't just challenge them as "unfair in your book".


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

Exactly.

As for those misinterpreting my comment on train delay due to wait for law enforcement... The whole point of the policy is to remove a risky person from the train, and by doing so keep the behaving passengers safe. A byproduct of that is guess what... the train doesn't wait for law enforcement to show up, it leaves on time and the trip ends for the person violating the contract of carriage. Any of your personal effects left on-board would be either mailed to you, or held at a location for you to pick up. The man was denied re-boarding at a station, not a cornfield, not a swamp, an actual station the train was scheduled to stop at. From a lawyer's perspective this case is not a case, it just is what it is. It's sad, but not really amtrak's fault.

25Hz wrote: The man was denied re-boarding at a station, not a cornfield, not a swamp, an actual station the train was scheduled to stop at. From a lawyer's perspective this case is not a case, it just is what it is.

I wouldn't go that far. It is alleged a man is denied passage. It is alleged that a man is left at a staffed, well lit station. This poor man is no longer with us. These days, we rarely accept that "sometimes, bad thing just happen." We assign blame. Therefore, I expect there to be a case. It doesn't mean it will get far, it doesn't mean that the railroad won't settle. However, I'm sure the next of kin will want to know "HOW?"

It might have been easier to explain if this happened at an unlit, unstaffed station or a swamp in the middle of nowhere. Hopefully, the station has cameras.

I don't remember any instance where an Amtrak train was delayed waiting for the police. 99% of the time the dispatcher is radioed of the problem from the train, and arranges local LEO's to meet the train at the next station, or the next major road crossing, depending how quickly they're needed.

25Hz wrote:As for those misinterpreting my comment on train delay due to wait for law enforcement... The whole point of the policy is to remove a risky person from the train, and by doing so keep the behaving passengers safe. A byproduct of that is guess what... the train doesn't wait for law enforcement to show up, it leaves on time and the trip ends for the person violating the contract of carriage. ... The man was denied re-boarding at a station, not a cornfield, not a swamp, an actual station the train was scheduled to stop at. From a lawyer's perspective this case is not a case, it just is what it is.

I'm not sure if the phrase I marked in bold is intended to say that you are a lawyer.

I'm not, but if I were on the jury, I would not see it as so cut and dried. Amtrak, and its agent, the conductor, have the obligation to exercise some level of care, they can't just say, we've thrown him off, we can now pretend he doesn't exist. If they had reason to believe that he was not safe, or would behave in an unsafe manner, I would think they would have some obligation to try to get someone (police, station agent, etc.) to keep an eye on him. I think this would apply even to people on railroad property who weren't passengers: if Amtrak employees are aware that someone is endangering himself or others on railroad property, they have an obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid someone getting harmed.

A lot would depend upon exactly what happened, and on what one considers "reasonable." There's only so much the employees can do, and they're not mind readers, either. But it doesn't sound good that, according to the story, the conductor did not report that he had refused the man reboarding until "some point" after the train had left Rochester. "Some point" is rather vague: if he called it in as soon as he could reach his radio, that's one thing. If it was a half an hour later, that's another. It would have been best if he had alerted the station manager (= station master?) before the train left, though.

ThirdRail7 wrote:

25Hz wrote: The man was denied re-boarding at a station, not a cornfield, not a swamp, an actual station the train was scheduled to stop at. From a lawyer's perspective this case is not a case, it just is what it is.

I wouldn't go that far. It is alleged a man is denied passage. It is alleged that a man is left at a staffed, well lit station. This poor man is no longer with us. These days, we rarely accept that "sometimes, bad thing just happen." We assign blame. Therefore, I expect there to be a case. It doesn't mean it will get far, it doesn't mean that the railroad won't settle. However, I'm sure the next of kin will want to know "HOW?"

The next of kin already know HOW.. everyone knows how..the guy was drunk and tried to get back on the train as it pulled away, that's how.
if there is a lawsuit, it wont be because the next of kin want to know HOW..it will be because they want to know HOW MUCH..

Scot

Is there an autopsy report saying that he was under the influence of alcohol? I know the guy has a record of misbehavior, but there have been cases where people appear drunk due to prescriptions or diabetic issues.