98(2/20/14) Delayed Jesup GA-CSX train strikes trespassers-Doctortown

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I always thought that with a wrongful-death lawsuit, the plaintiff not only had to establish that the defendant's actions caused the death, but also that said actions were negligent or reckless?

Also, exactly what "duty of care" did CSX have? Not saying they didn't have one, just curious as to exactly what it was.

Granted, I don't know what the jury instructions entailed, and I realize that plays into it also.
 
This is an OJ Simpson "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" type of verdict. CSX lost because the plaintiff argued that that two previous trains should have warned the third train. If I were the defendant's lawyer, I would have said that two trains passing at full speed should have been enough evidence to warn ALL the staff that maybe they shouldn't be there.

The only part of the Plaintiff's case I can even remotely have difficulty defending is the fact that the engineer didn't even attempt to slow down until after impact.

What else can we expect from a red neck jury ? Bull must have had a hand in picking the jury ?
Watch it. And I mean it. I could have easily been in that jury pool as I live in the jurisdiction. The reality is that there is a better chance that the rail crew was more blue collar than the jury. Savannah isn't a backwards redneck town. Come here and I'll show you. This case was won against CSX for one reason ONLY - perceived cash cache and the emotional desire to tap into it. Quite frankly, if there were more "red necks" in the jury, CSX would likely have walked out without losing a penny.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Watch it. And I mean it.
463e6e772ade5e04eedb658ffe95890d.gif
 
This is an OJ Simpson "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" type of verdict. CSX lost because the plaintiff argued that that two previous trains should have warned the third train. If I were the defendant's lawyer, I would have said that two trains passing at full speed should have been enough evidence to warn ALL the staff that maybe they shouldn't be there.

The only part of the Plaintiff's case I can even remotely have difficulty defending is the fact that the engineer didn't even attempt to slow down until after impact.

What else can we expect from a red neck jury ? Bull must have had a hand in picking the jury ?
Watch it. And I mean it. I could have easily been in that jury pool as I live in the jurisdiction. The reality is that there is a better chance that the rail crew was more blue collar than the jury. Savannah isn't a backwards redneck town. Come here and I'll show you. This case was won against CSX for one reason ONLY - perceived cash cache and the emotional desire to tap into it. Quite frankly, if there were more "red necks" in the jury, CSX would likely have walked out without losing a penny.
The engineer issue does make sense to me. :)
 
We must have missed this. The last settlement has been reached. I'd love to know what CSX copped to. Knowing them, they may have played hardball and said something like "Here's what we're offering. Take it or your grandchildren's grandchildren will still be in court over this."

Years of Litigation Over Allman Movie Train Wreck Ends in CSX Settlement

https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/2019/01/30/years-of-litigation-over-allman-movie-train-wreck-ends-in-csx-settlement/?slreturn=20190208151943

The undisclosed payment satisfies a $3.9 million judgment against the railroad resulting from apportionment of a total $11.2 million verdict in a 2017 trial. It’s the conclusion of litigation against the last of a series of defendants involved in the train crash on the set of a movie about musician Gregg Allman.

“It has truly been an honor to represent the Jones family and to work to secure justice on behalf of Sarah Jones,” lead plaintiffs’ counsel Jeff Harris of Harris Lowry Manton said in a statement released Wednesday. “We hope that no other family will endure the loss of a loved one due to unsafe conditions filming on location or on set.”
As usual, the engineer's actions were targeted.

An important part of the case for the Jones family was asserting that the engineer of the train that hit the crew should have tried to stop. Instead, Harris said his expert testified the engineer did not apply the service brake or emergency brake until five seconds after he hit the movie set—with equipment flying and crew members trying to scramble off the high trestle.

CSX lawyers argued that the engineer didn’t apply the brakes because he feared the containers on the train would have tumbled off on the crew, or the train would have derailed, according to Harris, who countered that, after the crash, the engineer did hit the brakes, and the train did not derail or lose cargo.
I still hope the crew sues for PTSD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still hope the crew sues for PTSD.
If they did, their lawyers would get sanctioned.  There is a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, but it's severely limited in Georgia. To win, the crew would have to prove all these elements: that the deceased should have foreseen that her negligence would result in severe emotional distress to them, that the plaintiffs suffered physical injury in the incident itself--the so-called "impact" rule, and that the emotional distress they have alleged caused physical harms that could be objectively proven.  As I read the various reports, there is no evidence that any of the crew suffered physical injury during the accident. So the lawsuit would be dismissed even before it started for complete lack of evidence as to one of the required elements. A lawyer who filed a suit without any evidence to support each necessary element would be subject to paying sanctions under Rule 11. 

Even if you could somehow overcome that total lack of evidence as to physical injury caused to the crew in the accident, there's still the collateral estoppel matter--the crew would be likely be barred from re-litigating the matters already decided in the first case, which includes the proportion of liability assigned to the movie production crew, CSX, and the deceased worker. It isn't clear to me what proportion, if any, was assigned to the deceased worker, but given that the movie production company is almost certainly bankrupt, the only other party who could pay damages to the crew would be CSX--depending on whether joint and several liability would apply here.

So...I hope the crew doesn't sue, because that would be the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit.
 
Can you show me all of the reports regarding the  mental health of the crews and can you show me the where they litigated the mental health of the crew in the first case? I must have missed those reports. 

Since things like PTSD can take quite some time to develop (and the trespassers getting hit by train is all of the physical evidence you need, particularly if it leads to issues at work), it would be premature for someone (particularly a person who isn't a lawyer) to define and dismiss something as frivolous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They almost certainly didn't litigate the mental health of the crew, but they did litigate the negligence issues. So the proportionate negligence findings will not be re-litigated. On the question of whether the case is frivolous, it would be under Georgia law. Georgia has a very restricted rule on negligent infliction of emotional distress--it requires physical injury in the incident itself--called the 'impact rule.'  No physical harm in the accident, no NIED.  The only exception is for a parent who witnesses the negligence-caused death of a minor child.   Like I said, Georgia has about the most narrow rule for NIED of any state that actually allows such suits.  It doesn't allow suits in cases like this, even if it denies recovery for late developing PTSD.  Other states--California, for one--are more generous in that regard. 

I'm pretty comfortable calling the case a frivolous one--even though I'm not licensed in Georgia, I've been licensed in two other states for close on 40 years. And I've taught  torts for the last 30 of them. 
 
I'm pretty comfortable calling the case a frivolous one--even though I'm not licensed in Georgia, I've been licensed in two other states for close on 40 years. And I've taught  torts for the last 30 of them.  
They almost certainly didn't litigate the mental health of the crew, but they did litigate the negligence issues
Perfect...a tort lawyer. If you don't mind, can you explain a few things?

Here's the scenario:The family of the deceased litigated the negligence issues. 

What does that have to do with the potential for the OPERATING CREW to file claim if needed?  Wouldn't that represent a new or different case?

We are seeing this increase within the industry of crews suffering from PTSD related stress,  particularly when incidents drag on.  It isn't easy to forget an incident when you are in court talking about it for years.  So, while some of the traumatized employees have filed claims against the companies ( with extreme cases usually ending in occupational disability) is there ANYWAY  the employees can start going after the estates of the people that are contributing to these incidents or file a CIVIL claim against the estate?

An example is what is occurring in the



thread. A brief fair use quote

PTSD from the crash


Smalls' work day started at 10:14 a.m. when he took a train from Southeast into Grand Central. Train 659 left Grand Central at 5:44 p.m., his fourth run of the day.

An Air Force veteran, whose specialty was missile maintenance, Smalls is married and has three children.

The accident has left him with post-traumatic stress disorder, which forced his retirement.

“Any time I’m around the train or just the thought of it, I get bad flashbacks,” he told attorneys for the deposition.

Last year, Smalls settled his own lawsuit with Metro-North for an undisclosed amount. Lawyers for the estates are asking a state appeals court to force Metro-North to reveal the terms of the settlement.
Is there anything that would allow him to sue the estate as well? Can he file a civil suit against the estate? If the crew in Georgia had similar issues, could they go after the estate in addition to or instead of CSX?

You can send me a PM if it helps.

Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My students always hate it when I say it depends, but the answer is, it depends. First off, on the jurisdiction. As I mentioned, Georgia is one of the stingiest states on actions like negligent infliction of emotional distress. Others make it easier to sue. I did think about worker's comp as a possible avenue of compensation for crew in this kind of case, but, checking on Georgia's workers comp rules, they again require that the on-the-job caused PTSD was caused by a physical injury that triggered the PTSD.  So that wouldn't work, either; and that wouldn't in any event result in recovery from the deceased person. 

In states that are more generous than Georgia in allowing negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, the plaintiff crew  would still have very much an uphill battle in suing the person killed.  For example, family members who see a loved one killed have the easiest time prevailing, as you might guess. But even then, there's a recent case in my comparatively generous jurisdiction where a parent raced to the scene of an auto accident, having been told that her son had been killed, and saw his dead body. She sued for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and the appeals court threw the case out, saying since she hadn't seen her son killed, just seeing the dead body was legally not enough.  It's a tough, tough cause of action to prevail upon.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a bit easier--there's a case where a guy committed suicide in the kitchen of an ex-friend, and the court said that the jury could properly find that his intent in doing it was specifically to cause the resulting emotional distress. But of course, in a train incident, there's unlikely to be evidence that the intent of the person hit was to cause distress to the crew. 

No one doubts that  the impact on crew of being involved in a fatal incident is horrible, and I can only imagine how awful that might be. ( I know a police officer who shot and killed someone in an absolutely justifiable case, but even many years later, he suffers terribly.)  But, as I often have to tell my students, the law does not provide remedies for every harm, even harms that are serious.  Cases of pure emotional distress--whether intentionally or negligently inflicted--have the least odds of prevailing, as compared to torts involved physical bodily harm or loss of property. 

PS I'm not and have never been a tort lawyer, though I was a litigator in my pre-teaching life, but having taught torts and advanced torts for so long, and having former students on both sides of the aisle in the tort world, I'm probably more opinionated about torts than most!
 
PS I'm not and have never been a tort lawyer, though I was a litigator in my pre-teaching life, but having taught torts and advanced torts for so long, and having former students on both sides of the aisle in the tort world, I'm probably more opinionated about torts than most!
You may not be a lawyer but I still appreciate your time and candor. I've just watched some people fall apart after incidents and they get dragged through the memories as the lawsuits progress. It seems quite unfair that if someone is standing on the tracks, they are forced to relive the events as they are questioned and often, faulted...and they don't have much of a remedy.

If I bring this up again (and I already did in the aforementioned Metro-North thread ^_^ ) feel free to bring me back to reality.

Thanks again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They are  a Lawyer Third Rail, just not a practicing Tort Lawyer.

And as with all Lawyers,their first comment is always "It depends." ^_^

 Several of our members are Attorneys, but not Tort Lawyers as far as I know.( one is a Retired Tax Attorney who became a Yoga Instructor and gives Yoga Lessons on Trains and during Gatherings! :giggle: )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top