Railfan's widow sues B&M

Thread View: net.railroad

2 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

2 total messages Started by John Purbrick Thu, 24 Jul 1986 20:47

#943

Author: John Purbrick
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1986 20:47

13 lines
1210 bytes

At risk of starting another round of "Trespasser sues for megabucks" stories
in net.legal, here's a story.

A couple of years back there was a fatal railroad crash just north of Boston.
Four people were killed, three of them railroad employees. The fourth, however,
was a railroad buff who had talked one of the engineers into letting him ride
in the locomotive cab, against company policy and instructions to employees.
Now, (you guessed it) the guy's widow is suing the Boston and Maine for her
husband's death. 

Is there any chance that the B&M could countersue the man's estate for his
action in suborning one of their employees to dereliction of duty, thus 
involving the company in an expensive lawsuit?

Re: Orphaned Response

#958

Author: roma
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1986 20:17

41 lines
2762 bytes

> A couple of years back there was a fatal railroad crash just north of Boston.
> Four people were killed, three of them railroad employees. The fourth, however,
> was a railroad buff who had talked one of the engineers into letting him ride
> in the locomotive cab, against company policy and instructions to employees.
> Now, (you guessed it) the guy's widow is suing the Boston and Maine for her
> husband's death. 
  
This disgusts me, but doesn't surprise me at all.  This is one reason why cab
rides are frowned upon by railroad management.

> Is there any chance that the B&M could countersue the man's estate for his
> action in suborning one of their employees to dereliction of duty, thus 
> involving the company in an expensive lawsuit?

Not being a lawyer, I don't know whether the B&M would have a case against
the railfan for causing them to break the rules because the railfan was not
subject to the B&M rule book since he was not an employee.  I believe they are
basically responsible for everything they do unless it is under duress.
The fan was not officially authorized to be in the locomotive cab, but I don't
know if the trespass laws come into play here.  If the train was a
passenger train, would it have any bearing on the case if it could be
determined that the passenger did not pay a fare and was thus a "stowaway"?

However, if the railroad employees' widows were to try to make a case against
the B&M, I suspect the railroad would make light of the fact that a rule
violation was involved.  To what extent is an employer liable for its
employees' actions and how does a violation of rules by the employee affect
such liability?  Is the agreement to follow the Book of Rules merely an
agreement or is it part of the employee's contract with the railroad?  If it
was part of the contract, could the B&M try to collect damages for breach of
contract?

Are there any lawyers or law students that can add anything?

Jon Roma
Computing Services Office, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

ARPANET: roma%uiucuxc@a.cs.uiuc.edu
CSNET:	 roma%uiucuxc@uiuc.csnet
UUCP:	 {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!roma

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads