Network Rail sued over Caithness crossing crash

[yorkie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-16354142

Network Rail is being sued by the son of a couple killed when their car collided with a train at a level crossing in Caithness two years ago.

Angus MacKay and his wife Margaret, both 81, from Inverness, and Mr MacKay's brother Donald, 66, of Latheron, died in the incident.

The MacKays' son, Donald, said he hoped his action would highlight what he said were shortcomings in crossing safety.

Network Rail said it could not comment on the legal action at this stage.

The crash happened at an unmanned, gate-free level crossing in Halkirk in September 2009.

The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) published a report on the incident the following September.

In the report, the RAIB said the company "did not properly understand the risk" at the site because it had not taken a record of four previous accidents - one of them fatal - into account.

The branch said: "Had it done so, the level of risk might have justified more costly risk reduction measures, and risk reduction measures that had been identified might have been implemented more quickly and before the accident occurred."

Eyesight records

Six recommendations were made on improving safety at the site.

One - upgrading the crossing so that it has a locally monitored automatic barrier - was investigated by Network Rail.

According to the RAIB report, the company concluded that "it would not be reasonably practicable to upgrade the crossing".

The RAIB also said Mr MacKay may not have seen, or had misinterpreted, the warning lights at the level crossing.

A review of his eyesight records concluded that, on balance of probabilities, his sight had not met the standard set by the Driver Vehicle and Licensing Authority (DVLA).

The RAIB also said it appeared that Mr MacKay was not wearing spectacles to improve his distance vision as he was advised at eyesight examinations in 2006 and 2009.

So you can ignore the advice at eyesight examinations, you can put yourself and others in danger by driving without being able to see properly, you can not take proper precautions when crossing level crossings... but what matters is not taking responsibility for your own actions these days, it's all about rights. Rights and compensation. Stuff responsibility (unless it's someone else).

Hopefully the Court will reach a just and sensible verdict and this case will be thrown out. This is effectively a case against taxpayers and society in general by people who are incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions and who believe it is right that others are placed in danger because their rights outweigh everything else.

 

[Nym]

He shouldn't have been driving, so he shouldn't have been there...

The red lights where flashing, so he shouldn't have been there...

So why in the hell is it NR's fault when he shouldn't have even been there in the first place?

 

[gordonthemoron]

presumably the son wasn't actually a dependent so how can he claim compensation?

 

[ng1980]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-16354142

So you can ignore the advice at eyesight examinations, you can put yourself and others in danger by driving without being able to see properly, you can not take proper precautions when crossing level crossings... but what matters is not taking responsibility for your own actions these days, it's all about rights. Rights and compensation. Stuff responsibility (unless it's someone else).

Hopefully the Court will reach a just and sensible verdict and this case will be thrown out. This is effectively a case against taxpayers and society in general by people who are incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions and who believe it is right that others are placed in danger because their rights outweigh everything else.

In light of the fact that the driver's eyesight was probably below the DVLA standards, and the fact that this was caused by driver error, the case should be thrown out. It cannot be Network Rail's fault.

However, I do agree that all level crossings should have a suitable gate or barrier, and should have CCTV, and I hope that this is reviewed (not only for this site) as a matter or urgency.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I also look forward to gates & CCTV being fitted to road junctions

 

[Old Timer]

These are the killer words, that have led to the claim.

The branch said: "Had it done so, the level of risk might have justified more costly risk reduction measures, and risk reduction measures that had been identified might have been implemented more quickly and before the accident occurred."

Taken from Yorkie's quote.

As with all things we have seen since Network Rail's inception, it is a manifestation of its inability to manage the newtwork in a proper manner.

The same theme keeps on coming up again and again in the RAIB Reports, and will continue until there is a desire to seriously change the attitude from performance above all.

 

[68000]

How on earth can this action succeed?

It is another example of lack of personal responsibility. The railway has to implement expensive measures to mitigate the risk that people that need glasses but they chose not to wear them? Is it any wonder that railway costs are rocketing

 

[swt_passenger]

However, I do agree that all level crossings should have a suitable gate or barrier, and should have CCTV, and I hope that this is reviewed (not only for this site) as a matter or urgency.

How many £billions have you got put aside for this proposal then?

 

[TrainfanBen]

He shouldn't have been driving, so he shouldn't have been there...

The red lights where flashing, so he shouldn't have been there...

So why in the hell is it NR's fault when he shouldn't have even been there in the first place?

What about if they were on foot?
They might still not have been able to see the signals, or manage to get out the way IMO.

 

[ainsworth74]

What about if they were on foot?
They might still not have been able to see the signals, or manage to get out the way IMO.

Are they also deaf as well as having poor eyesight?

 

[Nym]

What about if they were on foot?
They might still not have been able to see the signals, or manage to get out the way IMO.

Then their mother or father should have beaten more sense into them about how to cross roads and level crossings when they where children!

But we're not dealing with what if on foot etc here, he was driving, he was driving illegally without his glasses, and he shouldn't have been on the level crossing...

 

[TrainfanBen]

Then their mother or father should have beaten more sense into them about how to cross roads and level crossings when they where children!

But we're not dealing with what if on foot etc here, he was driving, he was driving illegally without his glasses, and he shouldn't have been on the level crossing...

I was just pointing out that an accident could still have occurred even if they were crossing on foot.

 

[Hydro]

I was just pointing out that an accident could still have occurred even if they were crossing on foot.

An 81 year old with failing eyesight is, frankly, in trouble crossing most things.

 

[NSEFAN]

It's a bad thing that Donald MacKay lost his parents, but they were adults. They were responsible for their own actions as others have mentioned. If the driver knew he couldn't drive safely then he is at fault when the car crashes due to his negligence. That is the harsh truth of the matter.

Why is it always the fault of the railways? If they drove straight through some red lights into a busy junction and met a similar end, would it be the fault of the other drivers, or the junction for not having barriers? :roll:

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Even if out of focus, red flashing lights should have been obvious. If they couldn't see them, doubt they would have seen a barrier.
In my old town, an elderly couple drove down the hill, onto the car ferry through the chains and off the other side into the river.
No one will ever know why.
(gates had to be fitted afterwards)

 

[GB]

There are enough incidents at level crossings with barriers, so why would anyone assume that if this crossing had barriers an accident wouldn't have happened.

 

[Trog]

Anything is possible with people....

I have seen a woman spend a 12 hour shift working in a site access cabin watching us lift the deck of a level crossing, take out the track, and dig a 12" hole ready for reballasting. At the end of her shift she got in her boyfriends new Range Rover and promptly tried to drive over the level crossing! Needless to say the car ended up somewhat nose down, and had to be lifted out.

 

[68000]

Shame no one asked the son would he sue if his parents were driving a car and they crashed into a pedestrian because they could not see clearly enough for driving.

 

[tsr]

I'm pretty sure the son of the elderly couple will argue this one along the lines of "they may have had poor eyesight, but it doesn't mean that NR had an excuse in not fitting the barriers, which could have provided a larger deterrent from going onto the crossing".

I'm pretty sure you'd notice if your car was about to go into a barrier even if you hadn't seen the red flashing lights. I have a number of family friends and relatives in various stages of old age (naturally I have many of all other ages!). It appears that the elderly are more fixated on what lies straight ahead when driving, even to the extent that they do not take into account traffic signals in their peripheral vision. A barrier may have been more useful for that particular couple.

I'd like to see the couple's son argue that all remote and rural crossings - or all crossings, for that matter - should have barriers. Somehow I don't think he'd get very far. There are many, many crossings like this, and I would think most have few if any ongoing safety problems. It would be interesting to see what the causes of accidents are. I suspect "people in a hurry", followed by careless or reckless driving for other reasons. The methods of design and construction of level crossings are very common for reasons including safety statistics, otherwise they'd be changed.

I am not making excuses for what may have been reckless actions, nor am I implying that what I have said above is entirely accurate in this specific scenario.

In addition, my condolences are, as always, extended to those who have lost loved ones on the railways.

 

[12CSVT]

If this does go to court the case should be thrown out.

IMO the person who was 100% at fault (ie the 81 year old driver) is now dead.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

It appears that the elderly are more fixated on what lies straight ahead when driving, even to the extent that they do not take into account traffic signals in their peripheral vision.

I don't think you have to be elderly (although far more likely) to do that. 20yrs ago I was on a minor road driving across moorland, blue sky, I could see way ahead, road clear, rail bridge in the distance. Almost didn't see the (main road) crossroads in a slight dip. F***!!! Stopped just in time. hock:
I knew someone who drove straight across he was only about 35yrs old. he was lucky. Scared the crap out of him.
Bet most drivers have experienced a near miss- didn't see it!
Police refer it to as driving without due care and attention.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The court action is over Network Rail's failure to manage the risk on the crossing, and, if they had done so, better crossing protection methods may have been provided. In which case, this incident may not have happened.

It is the driver's responsibility to ensure they are fit to drive, and Network Rail's responsibility to ensure the risk is managed appropriately. It is possible for more than one person to hold some responsibility for an incident and this is what the court action will establish.

 

[Greenback]

Unfortunately, in my view, the prime motivation behind a lot of litigation these days, is more to do with obtaining money (often through an out of court settlement) rather than to actually establish culpability and ensure that the risk of accidents will be reduced in future.

 

[anthony263]

Unfortunately, in my view, the prime motivation behind a lot of litigation these days, is more to do with obtaining money (often through an out of court settlement) rather than to actually establish culpability and ensure that the risk of accidents will be reduced in future.

My thoughts exactly. I do wish Network rail will take this to court and have the case thrown out.

I think the son is only after money in this case maybe network rail should sue him as well for the disruption his parents caused.

(Sorry if I offend anyone but sometimes cases like this really annoy me)

 

[Nym]

Same here, sue him back for damage to the track and ballast, and having to clean up the mess after.

 

[GearJammer]

Anything is possible with people....

I have seen a woman spend a 12 hour shift working in a site access cabin watching us lift the deck of a level crossing, take out the track, and dig a 12" hole ready for reballasting. At the end of her shift she got in her boyfriends new Range Rover and promptly tried to drive over the level crossing! Needless to say the car ended up somewhat nose down, and had to be lifted out.

You should've just buried the dam car in the hole, people with that level of stupidity should'nt even have a licence!

Maybe Network Rail HAD done a risk assesment of the crossing and had stupidly (said with tounge in cheek) assumed anybody driving over the crossing would have good eye sight, i mean why would you think that an 81 year old with defective vision would be driving at all, let alone attempt to drive over a level crossing when the siren and lights were flashing.
From my observations of OAP's driving, i expect he was to busy chatting to his passengers to notice what was going on around him!

 

[Tracky]

Unfortunately, in my view, the prime motivation behind a lot of litigation these days, is more to do with obtaining money (often through an out of court settlement) rather than to actually establish culpability and ensure that the risk of accidents will be reduced in future.

And for all his effort and anguish, it will not bring his parents back...

 

[bluenoxid]

It is sad really that NR will probably settle this out of court because the legal precedent for losing would be too damaging.