Discussion related to commuter rail and rapid transit operations in the Chicago area including the South Shore Line, Metra Rail, and Chicago Transit Authority.

Moderators: JamesT4, metraRI

  by 3rdrail
 
F40CFan wrote:1) She was not paying attention to where she was or fell asleep.

2) She rushed to the door and forgot her violin.

3) Instead of safely riding to the next station, she forced her way unsafely through closing doors.

4) When the train started moving, instead of safely removing the strap from her arm, she unsafely held on and allowed herself to be dragged.

Cars similar to these have been in use since 1950 and she is the first person to manage to get hurt this badly.

Hmmm, equipment, procedures or stupid human?
Well...Thank Goodness !!! Just when I thought that nobody was perfect, you happened to come along !
  by justalurker66
 
Yep. Posting it twice doesn't make it true.
  by F40CFan
 
3rdrail wrote:
F40CFan wrote:1) She was not paying attention to where she was or fell asleep.

2) She rushed to the door and forgot her violin.

3) Instead of safely riding to the next station, she forced her way unsafely through closing doors.

4) When the train started moving, instead of safely removing the strap from her arm, she unsafely held on and allowed herself to be dragged.

Cars similar to these have been in use since 1950 and she is the first person to manage to get hurt this badly.

Hmmm, equipment, procedures or stupid human?
Well...Thank Goodness !!! Just when I thought that nobody was perfect, you happened to come along !
I never said I was perfect. I was only pointing out, without sarcasm or insults, that she made numerous mistakes that caused her injuries. If she had been more careful or used some common sense, the tragedy would not have occurred.
  by F40CFan
 
justalurker66 wrote:Yep. Posting it twice doesn't make it true.
Just out of curiosity, do you live in the Chicago area? Do you use Metra? Did you see all the news stories covering the accident and court hearings? I did, and even the bleeding-heart media could not cover the fact that she was careless. Yes, the conductor did not check the side of the train before departure, but that is the only thing the railroad did wrong.
  by byte
 
F40CFan wrote: Just out of curiosity, do you live in the Chicago area? Do you use Metra? Did you see all the news stories covering the accident and court hearings? I did, and even the bleeding-heart media could not cover the fact that she was careless. Yes, the conductor did not check the side of the train before departure, but that is the only thing the railroad did wrong.
The fact that the conductor did not check the side is reason enough for her to win the lawsuit. Doing the "second look" was not required to check because the C&NW rulebook didn't require it, barring that fact that previous documented incidents of people being dragged had happened and higher-ups ignored it. Some upper level manager(s) at the C&NW didn't do their job and someone else got hurt because of it. Metra was responsible as well because they did have "second look" protocol in their rulebooks (since 1987) but didn't exercise oversight onto the C&NW crews running their trains. It's not something most of us like, because she did indeed leave her seat too late to safely leave the train, but that's the way it is. Allegations (by Metra/C&NW) of folkway violations and commuter etiquette violations on the part of Ms. Barton would never stand up as a valid defense in court, because mass transit systems in this country have to be safe for not only the seasoned commuter but also the once-in-a-while rider. This isn't a third-world country where you can ride on the roof but if you don't find something to grab onto and fall off and die, well, it's not the railroad's problem.

Personally I've never put much water into the "she should have let go" theory. At some point during the court proceedings an actual set of bilevel doors were brought in, and used to re-enact the segment. I have faith in the legal system in that whatever the jurors saw, they acted reasonably on. Also remember that the violin was in the train when the doors closed, and wasn't at risk of being destroyed. The arguments of her "choosing between saving her legs by letting go or letting her violin get destroyed" aren't valid because the violin never left the train. It was safely in the vestibule the whole time, and she testified that she knew that when the doors closed.

I still hold my contention that the worst things with this case occurred in law offices and courtrooms afterwards. It set the benchmark to go by when a lawyer felt like gouging a railroad for all they could, rather than what was actually sufficient for their client.
  by 3rdrail
 
F40CFan wrote: Yes, the conductor did not check the side of the train before departure, but that is the only thing the railroad did wrong.
Hello !!! My advice to you, F40CFan is to keep your day job, and don't even consider a career as a criminal defense attorney.

Also, there is a difference civilly and criminally between an intentional act and one that is unintentional (intent). A railroad which fails to comply with standard operating procedure for over one hundred years, ie. monitoring door closures, is an intentional act (nonfeasance). Standing too close to a closing door is unintentional. I have no doubt that the jury in this case saw this as well.
  by F40CFan
 
Witty you are. Try reading bytes post above.
  by 3rdrail
 
F40CFan wrote:Hmmm, equipment, procedures or stupid human?
I'm witty enough not to make the ignorant mistake of merging both the accident and the law suit and wrapping it all up in one little boorish package, and psychologically rounded enough not to panic at the thought of my beloved trains and railroad being put in a poor light, "F40CFan".
  by Milwaukee_F40C
 
Anybody know who the guys were (or their occupations) who applied the tourniquets ? That was a ballsy move that saved her life. Unfortunately, most people would just stand and gawk.
I would have to count myself as a gawk/ leave the area person. You can be sued for trying to help someone, something to keep in mind.
  by justalurker66
 
F40CFan wrote:Witty you are. Try reading bytes post above.
I have ... and I agree with 3rdrail.

You said "Yes, the conductor did not check the side of the train before departure, but that is the only thing the railroad did wrong."

Isn't a reckless disregard for passenger safety enough? Or do they have to do more wrong?
  by 3rdrail
 
Milwaukee_F40C wrote:
Anybody know who the guys were (or their occupations) who applied the tourniquets ? That was a ballsy move that saved her life. Unfortunately, most people would just stand and gawk.
I would have to count myself as a gawk/ leave the area person. You can be sued for trying to help someone, something to keep in mind.
No you cannot unless you do some agregious wrongdoing (such as recklessly or maliciously acting in bad faith). The Good Samaritan Law exists in most states and protects anyone from law suits as a result of attempting, in good faith, to assist another. The standard is always a pier, ie. a physician would not rule on a case whereby a non-medical person gave first aid. A board of non-medical persons would judge in such an instance should there be a question (which I believe to be highly unlikely). To not aid an individual who requires assistance if you have the capability is just cowardice. (Have any lawyers on this thread ever heard of anyone being succesfully sued for administering good faith first aid ?)
(I suggest to anybody that they take a CPR course, offered at numerous places accross the country. You may say "why go to the bother of helping a stranger ?", but statistically, people who have been trained most often use their knowledge on a loved one or family member.)
  by F40CFan
 
3rdrail wrote:
F40CFan wrote:Hmmm, equipment, procedures or stupid human?
I'm witty enough not to make the ignorant mistake of merging both the accident and the law suit and wrapping it all up in one little boorish package, and psychologically rounded enough not to panic at the thought of my beloved trains and railroad being put in a poor light, "F40CFan".
My my, don't we have a high opinion of ourself. I don't care about lawyers and lawsuits. I was talking about common sense. Of personal responsibility. Not blaming others for my actions. Since this appears to be an alien concept to you, and all you like to do is make rude statements, there is nothing else to say here.
  by justalurker66
 
F40CFan wrote:I was talking about common sense. Of personal responsibility. Not blaming others for my actions.
Common sense starts with experienced rail employees doing their job ... of personally taking responsibility for their train and their passengers and not blaming the passengers when railroad employees fail to do their job. I realize you want to play "blame Rachel" ... but the people most at fault were the ones who knew the most about the operations and dangers of railroad operations and failed to do the right thing.
  by 3rdrail
 
F40CFan wrote:there is nothing else to say here.
There wasn't anything thoughtful to say from your first post on. Isolated individuals (either isolated socially or economically) often overlook the human condition because they think only in terms of their own. Sooner or later, however, we all realize the wisdom behind these famous words written by John Donne...

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee..."
  by spatcher
 
justalurker66 wrote:
F40CFan wrote:I was talking about common sense. Of personal responsibility. Not blaming others for my actions.
Common sense starts with experienced rail employees doing their job ... of personally taking responsibility for their train and their passengers and not blaming the passengers when railroad employees fail to do their job. I realize you want to play "blame Rachel" ... but the people most at fault were the ones who knew the most about the operations and dangers of railroad operations and failed to do the right thing.
Common sense starts with not pushing your self through closing doors of something that is about to move. Common sense starts with not relying on someone else to save you from your own stupid actions. I realize that you want to play the "lookout for the little man game".... but the person most at fault was the one who pushed themselves through a closing door, who decided that risking life and limb to save 5 minutes was more important waiting until it was safe to get off the train.

BTW, since some people who "no nothing about the case" have their opinion based on what they read on Wiki, here is another look at things, including the crap that Bartons lawyers did in the trial.

http://www.columbiachronicle.com/back/1 ... 8/vp1.html


Also from what I remember, Metra had to pay almost all of the fine due to a indemnification agreement signed with the Union Pacific.spatcher
Last edited by spatcher on Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.