Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

More_Cowbell

(2,207 posts)
2. As the OP says, the jury found the driver 30% liable
Mon May 13, 2019, 11:49 AM
May 2019

I couldn't find one story that had all the details, but a few stories add more. Eight accidents had occurred at this crossing, which was marked with a sign but no bells, lights, crossing gates, etc.

The railroad had already admitted that one of its old buildings blocked drivers' view of oncoming trains. But it made its lessee, a small family business, responsible for taking down the building. It took the family a few years to raise the $50k to demolish it. Of course, that would have been a drop in the bucket (and I wouldn't be surprised if it would be deductible) for the railroad.

Ironically, the driver was driving a big rig to carry the back hoe that was used to demolish the building.

Cases like this are meant to make companies do the right thing instead of make the common decision, which we've all seen before, to avoid paying a small price to avoid a big danger.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Oklahoma»Jury awards millions to f...»Reply #2