As has been discussed many times on photography forums, including this one just a few months ago, train tracks can be dangerous and even deadly places.
_______________________________
Here is a link to a longer article with some interesting little details of this case:
Woman hit by train while taking photos on Tupelo tracks seeks millions from railroad
By The Associated Press
November 17, 2009, 7:23PM
JACKSON, Miss. -- Helen Gable was taking pictures on the railroad tracks in Tupelo in 2006 when a train cut her leg nearly off as she tried to get out of the way.
Gable and her husband are suing the BNSF Railway Co. for nearly $6 million. The husband wants $575,000 for "his mental anguish and loss of consortium and sexual relations with his wife."
Helen Gable says in the lawsuit that the company should have posted no-trespassing signs to keep people away from the tracks.
(clip)
"Helen Gable, while taking pictures of her niece's daughter, was exercising due care" while standing on the tracks, the lawsuit said.
Gable's foot got stuck in the rocks about six feet from the tracks when she tried to get out of the way, the lawsuit says. It took six surgeries to repair the damage to her right leg."
I just can't understand this... I will admit that i've taken pictures on tracks before, however -- I can't imagine letting a train get anywhere close to where we were. There are very, very few locations on a railroad track that you can't see for at least several miles whether or not a train is coming. Why would someone wait until a train is within half a mile...much less close enough for a cable to hit you??
To me, this was just asking for trouble and looking for a lawsuit. Another prime example of giving photographers a bad name for one person's utter stupidity.
who was the photog that posted the youtube vid of a photoshoot from a train when a passing train wizzed by just missing the model's head by a couple of feet. If her veil got hooked up in something, there goes her head. That was a foolish foolish gesture on the photog's part since it probably encouraged other's to do the same. BTW pictures were awesome, but I just wouldn't have done it.
derthax wrote:
I just can't understand this... I will admit that i've taken pictures on tracks before, however -- I can't imagine letting a train get anywhere close to where we were.
I mostly photo trains--it's my niche. I have a lot of experience with them and am around them every day. Trains now run on CWR--continuous welded rail. There are no joints; there is no clickety clack. Modern engines such as the Dash 9 are sound muffled pretty well, and the vaccuum that forms around a train when it's running at track speed reduces most sounds from going forward of the train. Trains can actually be very quiet. The rumble noise they make is hidden in the background noise we hear every day. If you think you're going to be safe because you think you'll hear a train coming in plenty of time, well, take it from me there's a good chance you won't hear it until it's right on top of you doing 60 mph. Stay clear of tracks. Stay at least 15 feet from the rail, 25 feet is better. Remember, those freight cars weigh 210,000 pounds each and they can come off that damn rail anytime they want to. I've seen it numerous times. As for the woman in the story, she was a moron and had no clue.......
r210 wrote:
Darwinism in full force. Trying to ensure survival of the fittest.
How do you figure?
If she had been killed I could see your argument, but she will (in all likelihood) end up with several million dollars as a reward for her monumental stupidity.
She should be jailed for trespassing and be forced to cover legal expenses for the RR to fight this steaming pile of horse excrement.
According to what Steady's article stated, the woman did (try) to get out of the way of the train, but that the railroad area somehow ensnared her foot (there seems to be no elaboration on how it did). If that's the case, the rail yard posed an unnecessary risk.
I find the argument that she shouldn't have been there in the first place to be rather daft if the above is true. The rail yard poses an open and obvious risk. Not to mention, despite being private property, it's highly accessible. Thus, being able to get away from the trains should also be just as open. If there was a hidden danger in the rail yard that ensnared her leg, then BNSF was bound to be hit by a lawsuit eventually, especially if it existed in multiple areas.
Just because the property is private does not shield the owners from hidden hazards and heaping a whole lotta blame on some person for an accident (and it WAS an accident) is essentially just blaming the victim (she shouldn't have been wearing the dress in that area!). It's not like the victim was dancing with her iPod on train tracks.
Are we going to start blaming other photographers that are hurt in hazardous areas because they shouldn't have been there in the first place (be it Afghanistan, out in the Woods, in the mountains, etc)?
kakomu wrote:
According to what Steady's article stated, the woman did (try) to get out of the way of the train, but that the railroad area somehow ensnared her foot (there seems to be no elaboration on how it did). If that's the case, the rail yard posed an unnecessary risk.
I find the argument that she shouldn't have been there in the first place to be rather daft if the above is true. The rail yard poses an open and obvious risk. Not to mention, despite being private property, it's highly accessible. Thus, being able to get away from the trains should also be just as open. If there was a hidden danger in the rail yard that ensnared her leg, then BNSF was bound to be hit by a lawsuit eventually, especially if it existed in multiple areas.
Just because the property is private does not shield the owners from hidden hazards and heaping a whole lotta blame on some person for an accident (and it WAS an accident) is essentially just blaming the victim (she shouldn't have been wearing the dress in that area!). It's not like the victim was dancing with her iPod on train tracks.
Are we going to start blaming other photographers that are hurt in hazardous areas because they shouldn't have been there in the first place (be it Afghanistan, out in the Woods, in the mountains, etc)?...Show more →
I wouldn't blame a photographer for being hurt in a dangerous place...that's their choice.....but if a guy decides to take pictures in the jungle, I don't think I'd be blaming a lion for eating him either
I get so tired of these types of lawsuits......it sure seems like nowdays people seem to think that stupidity is spelled $tupidity....as in, I can do anything I want, hurt myself (or somebody else) and my stupidity will be be paid for by somebody else because I can just $ue them and win a bunch of $$$$.
tc-photo wrote:
I wouldn't blame a photographer for being hurt in a dangerous place...that's their choice.....but if a guy decides to take pictures in the jungle, I don't think I'd be blaming a lion for eating him either
Blaming the lion would be tantamount to blaming the train for hurting the woman. She isn't doing that. Rather, blaming the railroad company (BNSF) would be like blaming the travel guide on your jungle safari.
tc-photo wrote:
I get so tired of these types of lawsuits......it sure seems like nowdays people seem to think that stupidity is spelled $tupidity....as in, I can do anything I want, hurt myself (or somebody else) and my stupidity will be be paid for by somebody else because I can just $ue them and win a bunch of $$$$.
Again, I'm still firm in my belief that she isn't stupid because she tried to get away. If there was a hidden danger (the train wasn't the hidden danger) that prevented her escape and ensnared her leg (if Steady's article is true), then she wasn't stupid. She operated under the assumption that she could walk or run away from the train (which is a rational and logical assumption). If something prevented her from doing so and trapped her, then that is certainly an accident and may not have been her fault.
kakomu wrote:
Blaming the lion would be tantamount to blaming the train for hurting the woman. She isn't doing that. Rather, blaming the railroad company (BNSF) would be like blaming the travel guide on your jungle safari.
.....except she didn't have a travel guide she foolishly went into the jungle (railroad tracks) on her own.....and the lion (train) bit her......nobody to blame but herself.
tc-photo wrote:
.....except she didn't have a travel guide she foolishly went into the jungle (railroad tracks) on her own.....and the lion (train) bit her......nobody to blame but herself.
If what trapped her was hidden in plain sight (a term used in human factors), then she can easily blame someone else and rightly so. As I said before, she didn't willfully put herself into the path of danger. She claims she was trapped by something.
Next someone will say that people are absolved of homicide when they kill someone for trespassing on their property because "they shouldn't have been there in the first place".
Two23 wrote:
I mostly photo trains--it's my niche. I have a lot of experience with them and am around them every day. Trains now run on CWR--continuous welded rail. There are no joints; there is no clickety clack. Modern engines such as the Dash 9 are sound muffled pretty well, and the vaccuum that forms around a train when it's running at track speed reduces most sounds from going forward of the train. Trains can actually be very quiet. The rumble noise they make is hidden in the background noise we hear every day. If you think you're going to be safe because you think you'll hear a train coming in plenty of time, well, take it from me there's a good chance you won't hear it until it's right on top of you doing 60 mph. Stay clear of tracks. Stay at least 15 feet from the rail, 25 feet is better. Remember, those freight cars weigh 210,000 pounds each and they can come off that damn rail anytime they want to. I've seen it numerous times. As for the woman in the story, she was a moron and had no clue.......
Agreed. I am also a railfan. Having 3 railroads in the area doesn't hurt things, either. You won't find me trespassing on RR property.
I always thought that the "RR track portrait" was pretty stupid, too. You wouldn't go sit on a stranger's fancy sports car for a photo, would you? I don't know why people think it's OK to trespass on another business's property. Especially when the change of death is so high. She's "lucky" that her niece didn't get killed. Because then they'd be suing HER.
I hope she loses her suit and is forced to pay all attorney' costs. Maybe then she'll learn to use some common sense instead of depending on signs to tell her what and what not to do.
