Good luck to this driver....

[yorkie]

'Do you support train driver Paul Jackson in his bid to sue former Energex chief executive Greg Maddock's estate over the trauma caused by Mr Maddock's suicide? '

Story: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23443166-421,00.html

Question being debated: http://blogs.brisbanetimes.com.au/yoursay/archives/2008/03/suing_a_suicide.html

I support the driver 100%. In fact the title is wrong, the "victim" is not the person who committed suicide - they are the purpetrator. The victims are the people affected by the act, including the driver.

As this purpetrator was a former Chief Executive, he will have bags of cash in his will. It is only right that the victims of his deliberate act get some of that cash as compensation.

It really annoys me that some people think it's a 'right' to be able to traumatise someone. It's NOT!

 

[me123]

I'm aware that he has a will and so on, but I don't think it's right to sue a "victim's" family, who truly are also victims of the suicide attempt. They're probably traumatised as well (not to the degree of the train driver to be fair) and saddened at the loss of a loved one. It can't be fair to put them through this as well.

The driver needs to sue Mr. Maddock himself and, given his currently deceased state, I don't see that happening.

I fully understand why the driver's doing it, and I think he does make good points on the whole, but it can't be fair on a family to be put through this.

 

[yorkie]

I'm aware that he has a will and so on, but I don't think it's right to sue a "victim's" family, who truly are also victims of the suicide attempt. They're probably traumatised as well (not to the degree of the train driver to be fair) and saddened at the loss of a loved one. It can't be fair to put them through this as well.

They could do the right thing and pay compensation without it having to go to court.

The driver needs to sue Mr. Maddock himself and, given his currently deceased state, I don't see that happening.

His money is still in existence...

I fully understand why the driver's doing it, and I think he does make good points on the whole, but it can't be fair on a family to be put through this.

It's not fair the driver should be put through this!

 

[me123]

They could do the right thing and pay compensation without it having to go to court...

His money is still in existence...

It's not fair the driver should be put through this!

The last thing you'd want if a member of your family has died is to pay money to some person; money that is now rightfully yours (before any compensation). Assuming he was not of sound mind (and let's face it, how many people who jump in front of trains are?) why should compensation be paid anyway just because the person had a mental/psychological condition? Why don't we also sue the (hypothetical) train driver who has a heart attack whilst on the job?

Someone who has commented on the website below has a better idea. Worker's compensation (which is available in Australia) should cover this.

I'm not saying it's fair on the driver; it wasn't and he's an unfortunate victim in all this, granted. But the family are also victims. How is it fair to put these victims through even more?

 

[yorkie]

The last thing you'd want if a member of your family has died is to pay money to some person; money that is now rightfully yours (before any compensation). Assuming he was not of sound mind (and let's face it, how many people who jump in front of trains are?) why should compensation be paid anyway just because the person had a mental/psychological condition? Why don't we also sue the (hypothetical) train driver who has a heart attack whilst on the job?

No-one chooses to have a heart attack! Sorry but I find that a terrible comparison.

Someone who has commented on the website below has a better idea. Worker's compensation (which is available in Australia) should cover this.

And someone with more sense replied:-

"...it is very limited and does not fully compensate for the loss."

"The deceased was the cause of the incident and the cause of the loss. Why should the worker not purue the party that actualy caused the injury (or in this case, the estate). Why whould the innocent worker be out of pocket?"

I'm not saying it's fair on the driver; it wasn't and he's an unfortunate victim in all this, granted. But the family are also victims. How is it fair to put these victims through even more?

As I said above, the victims can so easily avoid it if they just pay compensation in the first place.

I'd be in favour of a law whereby compensation is automatically paid to traumatised victims of suicides (whether successful or not), subject to funds in the estate of the purpetrator being available.

The family should only recieve inheritance after all liabilities are paid, and this is just another one to add to the bill. If a robber robbed a bank and then committed suicide, by your logic you could say it is "unfair" for the victims to be put through the courts to recover the money?

At the end of the day, this person chose that course of action, and he should pay for the harm he has caused.

 

[me123]

No-one chooses to have a heart attack! Sorry but I find that a terrible comparison.

No-one chooses to have a mental illness, either. Remember, when jumping in front of a train, the person will not be of sound mind, and they themselves do not choose this course of action, rather the illness does.

My point is that you can't sue someone for having an illness which causes an accident, be it mental or physical. I'm sure part of many people's reasoning in this case is the stigma associated with mental ill health.

And someone with more sense replied:-

"...it is very limited and does not fully compensate for the loss."

"The deceased was the cause of the incident and the cause of the loss. Why should the worker not purue the party that actualy caused the injury (or in this case, the estate). Why whould the innocent worker be out of pocket?"

But what is there to acheive? One could argue that nothing at all can compensate afor such an incident. Get the money from a sensible resource, not a greiving family. If the person feels he needs compensation, he should apply for Worker's Compensation which is a better course of action.

The family should only recieve inheritance after all liabilities are paid, and this is just another one to add to the bill. If a robber robbed a bank and then committed suicide, by your logic you could say it is "unfair" for the victims to be put through the courts to recover the money?

At the end of the day, this person chose that course of action, and he should pay for the harm he has caused.

I shall once again say that, if you jump in front of a train, you are not of sound mind; same with bank robbers. Why should you pay for having a mental condition that got out of hand? Neither of these people are likely to have chosen this course of action.

Had the bank robber chosen in sound mind to rob the bank and shot himself in panic, we'd be looking at them receiving some form of compensation then, but that's a different route. Not many people of sound mind will jump in front of a train.

Bank robbers and the like pose problems, but probably everyone who jumps in front of a train is suffering from a mental illness of some form; as I said, why should you punish someone for that?

 

[Wayfarer Sam]

I am with me123 on this one. I can appreciate how traumatic it can be for drivers in this situation but I see no logic in what he is doing.

 

[Zamracene749]

Don't suppose this man could be motivated by greed then?

After all, all train drivers are sensitive thoughtful and selfless aren't they.......

 

[Coxster]

If the driver of the train was injured and required medical treatment that he had to pay for or required counseling that, again, he had to pay for as a result of the incident then yes, I'd say he is entitled to the money that he had to spend for either/both of these things and/or any loss of earnings.

If not then what is being given money going to achieve? If he is suffering from depression, for example, then being given lots of money is not just going to stop that depression is it?

I'm sorry if that sounds wrong or disrespectful to those involved, but a question was asked so I gave my answer to it. I can't say I imagine what the driver went through and how he is feeling right now as I have not been in those shoes and have not (and hopefully will never) gone through it, but I think we all can understand that it is a deeply distressing experience for all involved, and bear this in mind when we comment in the way that we do, Yorkie.

 

[Zamracene749]

It would seem that money was no help to the guy that jumped.
But then, as explained ad nauseum after similar incidents in the past, mental illness makes no sense. Remember reading somewhere once that suicide claimed more men 18-44 years old than cancer in the UK not sure if thats true like.

Mind if the driver could show that someone else had driven this guy to suicide then perhaps he might have a case?

 

[me123]

Each year, almost 5,000 young people, ages 15 to 24, kill themselves.

* Suicide amongst teenagers & young adults has increased 3 fold since 1970.
* 90% of suicide amongst teenagers had a diagnosable mental illness, depression being the most common.
* In 1996 suicide was the 4th biggest killer of 10 to 14 year olds, and the 3rd biggest killer of 15 to 24 year olds.

Quoted from http://www.depression-guide.com/depression-teen-suicide.htm

 

[Zamracene749]

Terrible figures. A couple of twin towers a year, a jumbo crash every month and just in the UK for a small percentage of the populace. Yet people still dismiss it as self pity because they don't and cannot understand it (who really does?).
How many people must be on or near the edge too?

PS to those who don't know, sympathy is neither wanted nor useful in most cases.Genuine understanding is.

 

[yorkie]

If the driver of the train was injured and required medical treatment that he had to pay for or required counseling that, again, he had to pay for as a result of the incident then yes, I'd say he is entitled to the money that he had to spend for either/both of these things and/or any loss of earnings.

Absolutely.

The general concensus on uk.railway appears to be along those lines too.

Mind if the driver could show that someone else had driven this guy to suicide then perhaps he might have a case?

He should have a very good case regardless, and I really hope he succeeds, and I'm not budging from that view.

That's not to say I am unsympathetic to the person who committed suicide, but people's careers can be ruined by such events. Some drivers never drive again. People's livelihoods are at stake here. No-one has the right to remove that from someone, no-one. Under any circumstances. And if someone does that, and their estate is worth a lot of money, then it is utterly wrong to suggest that some of that money should not go toward someone whose career may be in tatters and may suffer flashbacks and depressions through the actions of the person who committed suicide.

I support the driver 100% and anyone else who is totally unwittingly, through no fault of their own, been forced into such a tragic situation. I think people need to bear in mind just how bad it must be for drivers being totally powerless to do anything about it and having someones remains splattered everywhere. They deserve our support.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So, Yorkie, based on what you are saying then you would accept that if a driver SPADs and people are killed as a result, the families of those killed should be able to sue the family of the driver for compensation?

Sue the family? Err... no...! How do you work that out?!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Right it seems the original story has been pulled from that page, but the question of whether he should sue or not remains.

The full story can be found here and the important bit is reproduced below:-

Mr Jackson, 39, struggled to return to work after the incident, later quitting as a driver, and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

The court documents state that Mr Jackson has difficulty in relationships, finds it hard to socialise without the incident being raised, and sees Energex signs and workers as a constant reminder.

"The claimant can still see the incident clearly in his head," the documents state.

"He can still see a photograph of Maddock diving in front of the train, as taken by the station camera."

And, in this country....

Driver bowls over suicidal chap whilst working for a cowboy operator, cowboy operator stops paying salary whilst driver off sick with trauma, driver £1,000's out of pocket, driver cannot recover from CICA (doesn't cover lost earnings), NR not negligent as trespasser reached line from public access point, driver left with no redress other than suing estate of corpse.

This happened in Britain in 2007. Yes really.

Anyone still think these drivers are not entitled to anything? If so we'll have to agree to disagree, but ponder this... how would you feel if your livelihood was destroyed and you were left in debt and unable to cope?

 

[class 313]

So, Yorkie, based on what you are saying then you would accept that if a driver SPADs and people are killed as a result, the families of those killed should be able to sue the family of the driver for compensation?

 

[me123]

Anyone still think these drivers are not entitled to anything? If so we'll have to agree to disagree, but ponder this... how would you feel if your livelihood was destroyed and you were left in debt and unable to cope?

They should be entitled to money from (in this case) a Worker's Compensation scheme or something similar; not by graverobbing from a person overcome by mental illness.

 

[Meld]

I fully sympathise with all parties concerned in this matter, but it was going to happen sooner or later,

You've seen the adverts - Had an accident !! Not your Fault !! Let us get you the compensation you deserve !!!

A downside to todays sue them society.

 

[Sir_Clagalot]

If a driver has a heart attack, then the vigilance device will apply the brakes, similarly, if the train goes over an aws magnet before the 'dead mans pedal/handle' has done anything, and the corresponding signal is at caution/danger, and the horn isnt cancelled, then the brakes will automatically be applied, as would happen with tpws for an overspeed/overshoot. TBH the train would most probably come to a halt long before it got to a position where it could be hit by another train.

 

[me123]

If a driver has a heart attack, then the vigilance device will apply the brakes, similarly, if the train goes over an aws magnet before the 'dead mans pedal/handle' has done anything, and the corresponding signal is at caution/danger, and the horn isnt cancelled, then the brakes will automatically be applied, as would happen with tpws for an overspeed/overshoot. TBH the train would most probably come to a halt long before it got to a position where it could be hit by another train.

In all likelyhood, yes, but in my example it was the principle that mattered more.

 

[Siggi155]

Hello. I am a driver myself. And here in Germany you usually wouldn't have any chance to get a compensation for a suicide accident. It is seen as an occupational risk. But I heard of an issue where a psychiatric hospital was sued, cause they've failed their custody for a patient. An insane woman was able to get out and commited suicide a few hundred meters away at the railway tracks. The management got a high penalty and the driver got a compensation. But money isn't be able to cope with accidents like this in a better way.

 

[Up Carriage Liner]

'Do you support train driver Paul Jackson in his bid to sue former Energex chief executive Greg Maddock's estate over the trauma caused by Mr Maddock's suicide? '

Probably not. If Paul Jackson is contemplating legal action is he not extending the distress and trauma for all parties, including himself?

A question for drivers out there:

When you accepted your train driving job offer, surely you were accepting the possibility of involvement in a fatality at some point in your career? Also, how do the various TOCs approach the subject during driver training?

 

[Coxster]

Also, how do the various TOCs approach the subject during driver training?

Here's a quote from O L Leigh's driving blog taken from this posting. It suggests to me that they were mentioned/talked about on a number of occasions. Obviously he can probably shed somewhat more light on that though.

"Naturally, such an incident triggers the "Chain of Care" procedure, which is intended to assist me back to work. Consequently, I have been booked off work since the incident and taking counselling sessions to help me deal with the memories of the incident and the emotions that they generate. Fortunately, there hasn't been any emotional reaction yet. I guess that this is partly down to the fact that railway fatalities were never shied away from throughout training and it is a subject that I had already devoted an amount of time to think about. I pretty quickly went through the rational process of thinking that "it wasn't me that killed this person, it was the train", "if it hadn't have been me it would have been the bloke behind me" and "if they hadn't jumped under a train they would have found some other means". If anything, the counsellor is happy that I'm dealing with events well but is concerned that I am perhaps a little too rational about it."​

 

[Metroland]

Well drivers already do get a certain amount of 'pay-out' for such things. Personally, I think it's an occupational risk, if you can't cope with such things you shouldn't be in job.

There are many jobs which involved dealing with less than savoury things, especially in the emergency services. A fireman, for example, must face facts that he might not always be able to save some children in a burning house. Now that really is harrowing. A policeman, must deal with road traffic accidents with remains splattered everywhere and so on.

Drivers these days get a very good wack for their job, far more than some of the people that deal with incidents all the time.

Besides, who else does it extend to, the drivers are not the only people involved with suicides on the railways, and others don't get any pay out, even those that go out to pick to bits up?

There is an argument to say to that driver feels responsible for hitting the person. But any rational driver knows that there is nothing he/she can do. He is no more responsible for it than the signaller that cleared the signals and so on, in some ways less so.

The people who are devastated the most by suicide and the friends and family of the victim, and the last thing they want is someone making money and pursuing it through the courts.

 

[Broken Viking]

Hail All!
Just sticking in my tuppeneth whilst I'm here, as I have a few things that I'd like to cast into this discussion. Please forgive the inappropriacy of my username in this case.

Personally, my own uptake on the situation is fairly simplified:

1. The driver should definitely be compensated for the incident, as - Either way ye look at it - The incident has cost him his job and livelyhood because he probabally can't even look at a train now without memories of the incident welling in his mind, let alone get behind the controls of one!
   .
2. The bereaved of Mr. Maddock shouldn't be approached for such compensation at all, as it wasn't their fault that he decided to do what he did. Given the (Presumed) value of his estate, such compensation should IMO be procured through acts of Law first from stocks and shares that he may have held, before being taken from sources that are easier for his bereaved family to notice.
   Whether this would be best done before or after Probate is performed though, I cannot form an opinion on.

To be true however, this kind of situation is a very tricky one. Not meaning to be insensitive to Mr. Mattock or anything, but given how he chose to depart our existance, I doubt that he'd have ever been allowed to cross Bifrost, and by now has probabally had to take up residence in Utgard...So either way, he is most likely paying for what he did to that poor driver in one way or another, though here on Midgard we aren't able to see what form such punishment(s) may take.

I have to admit that on two occasions in the distant past, I was tempted to do the same thing through depressive and overbearing thoughts...But after seeing what happens to drivers after such events, I'm truly thankful to the Gods that I've never actually attempted such a thoughtless and unforgivable act!
The biggest headache there is that when people contemplate railway suicide, all they see heading towards them is a machine weighing many tons...They never see the poor driver sat at the controls who wants no involvement in such matters and will - In all likelyhood - Have to live with the event in his mind for the rest of his life! :cry:

Worrying, sad, or sick though it may sound...Where railway suicides are concerned, I would sooner be the driver of the train concerned than anyone else. Throughout the years, I have already witnessed horrific accidents and great Bloodshed (I worked in an Abbatoir for a time) and would rather that I have to bear the thoughts and strains of such emotions than anybody else, as I already feel familiar with horrific sights and events such as those...

Gods! If only people contemplating suicide would choose a method that's much easier for those around to deal with (Such as poisoning or electrocution) then they wouldn't be such a problem. However, even if suicidees chose to perform their accursed acts on driverless ATO lines using empty stock movements (Computers have no soul, and thus no recurring concience to worry about) someone would still have to go through the terror of cleaning up the mess... :cry:

Farewell...
>> Colin B <<

 

[yorkie]

1. The bereaved of Mr. Maddock shouldn't be approached for such compensation at all, as it wasn't their fault that he decided to do what he did.

Agreed. And they are not being approached and it is not legal to persue them for money. If he has no money in the estate then they don't have to pay out of their pocket, and there is no suggestion that they should pay.

Given the (Presumed) value of his estate, such compensation should IMO be procured through acts of Law first from stocks and shares that he may have held, before being taken from sources that are easier for his bereaved family to notice.

I'm not sure exactly how it works, but I would guess it would include things like stocks, shares... anything that had value that was his. All his debts would be paid from those assets. If he had loads of debts but no assets, then no-one who was owed would get anything as the family can't be held responsible for the debts. I think some people are against the driver because they think, incorrectly, that the family is being sued or asked for cash. They aren't.