Continuing the discussion from Breaking News - Amtrak Train Southwest Chief has derailed near Kansas City:
If local state and fed law enforcement wanted to could whoever drove the truck go to jail and or get sued by amtrak and the passengers for damages?
My understanding is yes (at least on the civil side of things).
We had a collision in suburban Chicago a couple of months ago, in which a moving truck was blocking the tracks (due, apparently, to a construction-related lane closure, and ensuing traffic jam, on the road). A commuter train struck the truck, and a passenger on the train was ejected and killed in the collision.
Last week, the family filed a lawsuit, against both the railroads involved (Metra and BNSF), as well as the moving company which owned the truck, and the driver of the truck.
On what grounds can they sue the railroad? I understand why the const
This guy killed 11 people and got jail time.
“Stokes was sentenced on September 21, 2004, to two years in prison for logbook, manslaughter, and hours of service violations. At sentencing, Kankakee County Judge Clark Erickson stated that it was not proven if a lack of rest played a factor in the wreck but that he believed Stokes would have been more able to make safe driving decisions if he had been fully rested.[12] Stokes was later found to have had multiple violations that required his attendance of traffic school five times in three different counties, which should have resulted in his license being suspended at the time of the wreck. He died in February 2007 from a cerebral hemorrhage.”
I just want to point out that just about anyone can sue anyone for anything in the US. Whether you win or not is another story.
(The YouTube celebrity Legal Eagle points this out frequently.)
I don’t understand the question.
If they could prove that the accident was caused by someone driving recklessly, why would you think that the driver might not be liable?
I would have thought that in most countries, you could be held criminally /civilly liable for causing an accident.
Step out into the road, cause a car to swerve and kill a newly qualified young doctor and hope that you are well insured.
If you’re talking about the collision I posted about, then, from that article:
Back when I went into the office every day (pre-COVID), I rode on that train line; Metra is the commuter train agency (and, I believe, owns the locomotives and passenger cars), while BNSF owns the rails, and provides the train crews. Trains can run as fast as 70mph on that line, but there are areas where the trains are required to slow down (due, I think, to track conditions). My suspicion is that the plaintiffs are arguing that, due to the road construction, and prior near-misses at that location, the railroads should have instituted a slow zone there.
(As @Atamasama notes, they can certainly sue over that; whether or not the lawsuit will be successful is another story.)
If the driver mentioned in the OP tried to beat the train to the crossing, that in itself is probably a Vehicle Code violation. More specifically, if the crossing had any operational control device (flashing red lights or gates), they would have been activated while the train was still safely far away. If the vehicle driver tried to cross while those devices were active, there’s a violation right there.
ETA: Oh wait a minute. Now I read part of the WaPo article. It says the accident happened at an uncontrolled crossing – no lights or gates. Oops.
In California at least, that would probably still be a vehicle code violation. There are specific rules about approaching uncontrolled railroad crossings. –
The speed limit within 100 feet of an uncontrolled crossing where you cannot see 400 feet along the tracks in both directions is 15 miles per hour.
(Says Senegoid, who just last month spent the whole month studying his ass off for the DMV Knowledge Test to renew his drivers license. And who got 23 of 25 questions correct as a result!)
News articles are indicating that the grade crossing in today’s accident in Missouri was an “uncontrolled” crossing (no lights, no gates). From the Kansas City Star:
Yep. See my edit to the above post.
Apologies for the simulpost!
I would imagine that the train is less able to slow down in time, so like ships at sea, it has the right of way. If you cross in front of a moving train and get hit, presumably you have at least failed to yield right of way, with all the criminal and civil liability resulting from the accident and its consequences.