Amtrak Train 91-CSX collision in SC (2/4/18)/Liability issues

[xyzzy]

SC law: "With regard to the crime of involuntary manslaughter, criminal negligence is defined as the reckless disregard of the safety of others. A person charged with the crime of involuntary manslaughter may be convicted only upon a showing of criminal negligence as defined in this section. A person convicted of involuntary manslaughter must be imprisoned not more than five years."

Did the CSX employees in question show "reckless disregard" as the phrase is understood in the SC courts? "Recklessness is a state of mind in which the actor is aware of his or her conduct, yet consciously disregards a risk which his or her conduct is creating." A prosecutor would have to convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that there was reckless disregard. Did the CSX crew "consciously" disregard the procedures for the switch? That's tough to prove, it seems to me.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Conscious disregard? What a bizarre concept. Sounds like the sort of vaguely irrational terminology only a lawyer could love.

 

[jis]

Seems to me that if disregard was conscious then the manslaughter would be borderline voluntary no? Lawyers!

 

[JRR]

I suggest that we wait until the facts are determined if they ever are.

Finally, assuming the case is tried and goes to the jury, the jury will decide what the facts, based upon the admissible evidence, are as it sees them.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Finally, assuming the case is tried and goes to the jury, the jury will decide what the facts, based upon the admissible evidence, are as it sees them.

Juries determine legal guilt or innocence. They do not and cannot determine actual innocence or guilt. It's possible we'll never know precisely what happened, but hopefully we'll learn enough to fully understand the problem. Unfortunately that's probably as far as we can take it at the moment.

 

[JRR]

Exactly, precisely!

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[xyzzy]

Conscious disregard? What a bizarre concept. Sounds like the sort of vaguely irrational terminology only a lawyer could love.

Concocted example: two people are in a car, and they're in a hurry. The driver says "I'm running the next red light", and the passenger replies "Don't do that, you might kill somebody". The driver indeed runs the red light and immediately collides with another car in which someone dies. The passenger in the first car testifies at trial that the driver said he would run the red light, was given a warning, and then ran it. That's conscious disregard.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

Conscious disregard? What a bizarre concept. Sounds like the sort of vaguely irrational terminology only a lawyer could love.

Concocted example: two people are in a car, and they're in a hurry. The driver says "I'm running the next red light", and the passenger replies "Don't do that, you might kill somebody". The driver indeed runs the red light and immediately collides with another car in which someone dies. The passenger in the first car testifies at trial that the driver said he would run the red light, was given a warning, and then ran it. That's conscious disregard.

It can not be ruled out that there was a similar situation of conscious disregard but not voluntary manslaughter in this case. For example, the CSX crew could have believed the switch was set correctly but had doubts, yet decided to leave it the way it was without checking to ensure it had in fact been switched back to the main line.

 

[JRR]

Folks, don’t get too involved n trying to classify this and trying to draw a bright line between a negligent act and a grossly negligent act. You can look at the law and then study all of the cases involving an interpretation of the law and then decide how the facts in this case stack up. When you are done doing this, you can then state your opinion as to how you think the matter should be determined.

How it actually will be determined , however, no will know until a jury or judge decides.

As the Devil’s Advocate stated that’s just the legal determination which is not necessarily what actually happened.

That’s the way the system works and is why most cases are settled.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[Dakota 400]

As far as I am concerned, based upon what I know, the CSX employee that failed to properly set the switch for the Silver Star to safely continue its journey, is the responsible one. Whomever that person is, he knows it. Whether he faces a court of law or not, what he did not do ought to haunt him for the rest of his life.

 

[Dakota 400]

And, I ask again, for the two Amtrak employees who lost their lives, what will their families receive in compensation. If anything.

 

[me_little_me]

Finally, assuming the case is tried and goes to the jury, the jury will decide what the facts, based upon the admissible evidence, are as it sees them.

Juries determine legal guilt or innocence. They do not and cannot determine actual innocence or guilt. It's possible we'll never know precisely what happened, but hopefully we'll learn enough to fully understand the problem. Unfortunately that's probably as far as we can take it at the moment.

Actually, "Proven Guilty" or "Not Proven Guilty". Right?

 

[JRR]

Finally, assuming the case is tried and goes to the jury, the jury will decide what the facts, based upon the admissible evidence, are as it sees them.

Juries determine legal guilt or innocence. They do not and cannot determine actual innocence or guilt. It's possible we'll never know precisely what happened, but hopefully we'll learn enough to fully understand the problem. Unfortunately that's probably as far as we can take it at the moment.

Actually, "Proven Guilty" or "Not Proven Guilty". Right?

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[JRR]

In a criminal proceeding, the jurors it the Judge would find the defendant “guilt or not guilty.”

In a civil trial, the standard of proof is different and the responsibility for damages is determined by the trier of fact.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[Rover]

As much as I respect Lester Holt on NBC Nightly News, this evening NBC's reporting on this tragedy seemed to me to point the finger of responsibility at Amtrak. I would classify this "reporting" as "incomplete news". Like others, I want to see the NTSB report to determine what happened and where responsibility lies. For me, at this time, CSX seems to be the responsible culprit.

And as much as I totally disagree about your opinion of Holt, I will say this -- all he does is read the crap that is put before him. Don't entirely blame him; point the finger where it belongs...

Lester Holt is a teleprompter reader, and he does his job enthusiastically. And he reads what's written for him as if he actually believes it, as go the others.

National News in just 20 minutes or so plus commercials... That's not "News" ... That's Entertainment !!

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

Does anyone know what is happening with 91 and 92 today? They are both currently stopped many hours late just north of Denmark, SC.

 

[user 1215]

Hmmm... The Amtrak Status Map shows both to be moving with no additional information. How odd.

91 just stopped in Denmark, and 92 just arrived in Columbia.

 

[AmtrakLKL]

91's engine was disabled by an animal strike. After a spell, 92 was used to push 91 back into a siding to allow 92 to pass while waiting for a CSX rescue engine out of Columbia.

 

[user 1215]

91 just passed through Savannah.

 

[JRR]

It is still showing Service Disruption in Jacksonville, DeLand and Winter Park. I’m in WP waiting for the 97 which is, believe or not On Time!

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[jis]

Are they able to drag a train that they have placed in "Service Disruption" out of that hole in their reporting system?

 

[John Bobinyec]

Yes. And they often do.

jb

 

[user 1215]

Back to the main topic, the NTSB just released a preliminary finding:

http://wach.com/news/local/ntsb-says-cayce-amtrak-train-collision-most-likely-human-error

For those of you who are allergic to Fox:

Therefore, the NTSB says the evidence indicates that human decision making and actions likely played key roles in the accident. Safe movement of the train through the signal suspension depended on proper switch alignment, which, in turn, relied on error-free manual work.

And their recommendation:

NTSB also says that because of this incident, they recommend that the Federal Railroad Administration issue an Emergency Order directing railroads to require that when signal suspensions are in effect and a switch has been reported relined for a main track, the next train or locomotive to pass the location must approach that location at restricted speed.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

the NTSB recommendation to FRA .

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RSR1801.pdf

 

[Thirdrail7]

Back to the main topic, the NTSB just released a preliminary finding:

http://wach.com/news/local/ntsb-says-cayce-amtrak-train-collision-most-likely-human-error

For those of you who are allergic to Fox:

Therefore, the NTSB says the evidence indicates that human decision making and actions likely played key roles in the accident. Safe movement of the train through the signal suspension depended on proper switch alignment, which, in turn, relied on error-free manual work.

And their recommendation:

NTSB also says that because of this incident, they recommend that the Federal Railroad Administration issue an Emergency Order directing railroads to require that when signal suspensions are in effect and a switch has been reported relined for a main track, the next train or locomotive to pass the location must approach that location at restricted speed.

Their recommendation was kicked to the curb in the past:

Recommendation to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA):

R-12-29

Require that until appropriate switch position warning technology is installed on main track switches (in non-signaled territory not equipped with positive train control), when a main track switch has been reported relined for a main track, the next train to pass the location approach the switch location at restricted speed. That train crew should then report to the dispatcher that the switch is correctly lined for the main track before trains are allowed to operate at maximum authorized speed.

On April 18, 2013, NTSB classified Safety Recommendation R-12-29 Closed⸺Reconsidered because the FRA argued that implementing this recommendation, which would apply to 52% of US railroad route miles, would be too disruptive to transportation.

I wonder if they will have more success this time. Additionally, what about territory that isn't signaled to begin with? Will the first train that pass through have to inspect every switch that was reported lined?