You guys are all wrong, and your knowledge of law is so far off, its crazy.
:lol: Thanks, you sure know how to make a guy feel special. B)
I'd suggest that there are some variables which make what you say not exactly true.
If the Agent is found to be operating in a negligent fashion, that isn't a problem for moron who caused this thing. Its a problem between Amtrak and its engineer- its agent. Amtrak bears all costs involved with this, including the lawyer. If Amtrak finds the Engineer to be at fault, they can then sue the engineer to recoup their losses.
If the engineer were deemed to be acting outside the scope of the agency relationship namely egregious violations of company policy or operating rules (something beyond mere garden variery negligence) then the interests of the railroad and the enginner are in conflict and the company will not continue to cover his representation.
Then as a matter of strategy the railroad would look to get themselves dismissed out. Why bother to pay litigation expenses if ostensibly they can get out of it entirely.
Also, it is not up to Amtrak as to determining if the engineer is at fault. That would have been done prior to the case going to trial during the investigation of the initial incident and would have relate to what I mentioned above. The trier of fact (judge in a bench trial jury in a jury trial) would be the one determining the fault level of the engineer, and also that of the deceased. Just because they're dead doesn't mean that contributory negligence or comparative fault doesn't apply (depending on which the jurisdiction uses.)
Assuming that the engineer did what he is supposed to do, and Amtrak is aware of that, the engineers problems are all emotional, primarily, I assume, rage at this ****'s wife for having the gall to kill herself and her unborn child, inflicting emotional strain on the engineer, and then her husband having the utter gall to attempt to blame it on the engineer.
As a matter of strategy it makes perfect sense to at least file suit and name the engineer personally. Yes, I am inferring this from your statement "attempt to blame it on the engineer." As previously stated, let's say that during the discovery phase it comes out that the engineer's actions exceeded the scope of the agency relationship, and by proxy also negates the use of vicarious liability against Amtrak. If the engineer isn't personally named in the complaint then the case would need to be refiled against the engineer (and there may be issues of res judicata or collateral estoppel to worry about as well depending on if the suit was dismisses with or without "prejudice.") However, if the case is filed against Amtrak and the engineer the case continues on and Amtrak would be dismissed from the case saving money and time. Civil suits aren't cheap to litigate nor do they operate quickly.
Though so long as the agency relationship remains intact then including the engineer allows for the plaintiffs to have someone to recover from should say Amtrak get dissolved or go bankrupt tomorrow. Though these scenarios are unlikely that's why it's done. The lawyers would much rather hone in on the deep pockets of Amtrak then the shallow pockets of the engineer.
After all this and as an aside I was reading a case and found this "well settled" rule applicable in cases such as this:
In proceeding in this manner, the engineer was acting in accordance with a widely accepted doctrine of railroad law, viz., that, absent knowledge of some disability on the part of a mature pedestrian seen on or near the tracks, a locomotive engineer who gives a proper alarm is entitled to assume that the pedestrian will heed the warning and move to a place of safety.