Mother sues Network Rail over "silent trains" role in daughter's death

big all · 15 Apr 2019

so so sad
do we tell our kids to not sit in the road at pelican crossings or on motorways specifically or not to just drown when they have the option to swim off course not we give them the basic skills and rely on them to make good choices in life

now if we notice they dont make good decisions me guide them as to there mistakes and ways to help them make good decisions in life
now a child loosing a life is so so sad but as the area was familiar territory the mother felt safe as did the child and it went wrong its natural to blame others but in the end the railway is far less to blame than the family as the child was not aware off even basic levels off danger in her surrounds

where her parents action contributory to her death we will never know
was the railway the problem i dont think so
very very sad but blaming others for your own shortfalls is often as suggested "pushed " by the sharks with pound signs in there eyes

RailUK Forums

Spartacus · 15 Apr 2019

It seems strange how it’s taken over four years for this to come to a head. Weird place to go on a cold winters night, whichever way you look at it.

philthetube · 15 Apr 2019

Aictos said:
Interesting question now but can the driver of the train involved sue the family for the trauma and stress that their actions led to?

After all, some incidents have resulted in so much stress and trauma that some drivers can never drive again as they suffer flashbacks from that incident.

Very good question, I can see no reason why not.

mpthomson · 15 Apr 2019

Aictos said:
I see how the family's lawyer say it's not about the money yet they're claiming for £22k in damages so if that's not about the money why the claim?

Also the Network Rail lawyer has some common sense and I quote "There would have been no significant risk to anyone using the crossing between 11pm and 7am, provided they checked carefully in both directions before crossing the track”.

Interesting question now but can the driver of the train involved sue the family for the trauma and stress that their actions led to?

After all, some incidents have resulted in so much stress and trauma that some drivers can never drive again as they suffer flashbacks from that incident.

The odd amount suggests that it could be the £22k is her legal costs.

mpthomson · 15 Apr 2019

philthetube said:
Aictos said:

Interesting question now but can the driver of the train involved sue the family for the trauma and stress that their actions led to?

After all, some incidents have resulted in so much stress and trauma that some drivers can never drive again as they suffer flashbacks from that incident.

Click to expand...

Very good question, I can see no reason why not.

No, of course you can’t.

mpthomson · 15 Apr 2019

dgl said:
You fine the parents. The idea being is that the amount of media coverage doing that would create would maybe make people sit up and listen to the fact that railways are not to be messed around with. We should not have to deal with people who mess around with the railways and get hurt as a result and unfortunately it is going to take incidents like this to drive the message home (or so you would hope, although with the Instagram generation it probably won't ).

.

This is genuinely one of the most stupid things that I’ve ever seen posted in this forum. The mother is a victim as well, she’s lost a daughter. She won’t have had any idea that her daughter liked to sit on railway tracks and i’m guessing would have spoken at her for some length if she’s found out about it. What good is fining her going to do?

Fawkes Cat · 15 Apr 2019

The last sentence of the Telegraph story is interesting:

The judge reserved judgment on the case until a later date.

That says to me that the judge is not dismissing the parent's case out of hand: even if the judge ultimately finds in Network Rail's favour, the plaintiff's case was at least arguable.

yorksrob · 15 Apr 2019

It's very difficult to see how this case serves the public interest. If it is successful, the only outcomes I can see are either one or a combination of the following :

increased expense/disadvantage to passengers/taxpayers due costs being imposed on the railway to somehow prevent people from sitting in the middle of a railway line
increased disadvantage to users of pedestrian crossings due to them being closed
increased nuisance to residents due to horns being sounded at all hours.

Personally I don't think that any of the above would be justified by this case.
One would hope that the judge will take heed of the coroners verdict.

Perhaps the only thing that should come from this is increased emphasis around the message that "the railway is always live" in its safety campaigning.

Bantamzen · 15 Apr 2019

yorksrob said:
It's very difficult to see how this case serves the public interest. If it is successful, the only outcomes I can see are either one or a combination of the following :

increased expense/disadvantage to passengers/taxpayers due costs being imposed on the railway to somehow prevent people from sitting in the middle of a railway line

increased disadvantage to users of pedestrian crossings due to them being closed

increased nuisance to residents due to horns being sounded at all hours.

Personally I don't think that any of the above would be justified by this case.
One would hope that the judge will take heed of the coroners verdict.

Perhaps the only thing that should come from this is increased emphasis around the message that "the railway is always live" in its safety campaigning.

Unfortunately any one of those outcomes could, and probably will result in more complaints, public expense & possibly more legal action in an ever increasing circle. And none of it will prevent the next accident where someone thinks the railway is a place to hang out, nor the next, or the ones after that. Teaching kids that railway lines, roads, abandoned buildings etc are not places to go and muck about on/in will however, though sadly taking responsibility for your actions and those of your kin seem to be lower priority than looking for someone to blame & possibly sue.

NSEFAN · 15 Apr 2019

Bantamzen said:
Unfortunately any one of those outcomes could, and probably will result in more complaints, public expense & possibly more legal action in an ever increasing circle. And none of it will prevent the next accident where someone thinks the railway is a place to hang out, nor the next, or the ones after that.

Indeed. But at least plenty of specialist lawyers are kept in employment, which is nice?

FrodshamJnct · 15 Apr 2019

A very sad story, but I can’t see how this is the fault of Network Rail. It’s all about what’s reasonable. Was it a reasonable request to NR to stop trains sounding horns during night hours - yes. It’s not reasonable to attempt to then attribute blame to NR when this person was trespassing on the railway and sitting between the tracks at night.

LeeLivery · 15 Apr 2019

Very sad. I live right next to a railway and you can hear trains - especially diesels and 455s in power quite a way off at night. I personally wouldn't blame NR for this as I'm quite hardline on trespassing. Don't do it and you won't die. It's a rather simple concept.

However, I've often thought the night horn ban isn't a very good idea and I'd be rather surprised if a decent lawyer didn't say "Network Rail have Stop, Look Listen signs, often have videos saying people can't tell which way trains are coming from by just listening to approaching trains without horns and, deem it necessary for drivers to use horns boards in the daytime when visibility is better. So why are horns needed in the day but not a night?" That's not going to be an easy one to answer to a courtroom.

Saying that the signs are ignored isn't a defense. It's like saying "terms & conditions are never read so we won't write that you're signing your soul away on the dotted line". So, in today's world, I can't help but feel NR should've known to cover themselves by modifying the Stop Look Listen signs, stating horns aren't sounded at night or told local residents (myself included) "We'll compromise and ban the loudest horn soundings. However, if you want no horns then tough, the horns are for safety, you moved to a home next to a railway, you will hear trains and their horns".

I wouldn't be surprised if a few recommendations are handed out at least.

bramling · 15 Apr 2019

LeeLivery said:
Very sad. I live right next to a railway and you can hear trains - especially diesels and 455s in power quite a way off at night. I personally wouldn't blame NR for this as I'm quite hardline on trespassing. Don't do it and you won't die. It's a rather simple concept.

However, I've often thought the night horn ban isn't a very good idea and I'd be rather surprised if a decent lawyer didn't say "Network Rail have Stop, Look Listen signs, often have videos saying people can't tell which way trains are coming from by just listening to approaching trains without horns and, deem it necessary for drivers to use horns boards in the daytime when visibility is better. So why are horns needed in the day but not a night?" That's not going to be an easy one to answer to a courtroom.

Saying that the signs are ignored isn't a defense. It's like saying "terms & conditions are never read so we won't write that you're signing your soul away on the dotted line". So, in today's world, I can't help but feel NR should've known to cover themselves by modifying the Stop Look Listen signs, stating horns aren't sounded at night or told local residents (myself included) "We'll compromise and ban the loudest horn soundings. However, if you want no horns then tough, the horns are for safety, you moved to a home next to a railway, you will hear trains and their horns".

I wouldn't be surprised if a few recommendations are handed out at least.

The way I see it the sounding of a horn is irrelevant in this case, as whistle boards are provided to assist users who are correctly using a crossing, in other words using the crossing to pass from one side of the railway to the other. Choosing to sit in the middle of the tracks having a chill-out isn’t how a crossing is intended to be used!

Sadly this really is a case of natural selection, quite simply it was a dumb thing to do, and unfortunately in this case luck ran out. No amount of legal posturing changes that - unless there’s an element to the story that we don’t know of course.

LeeLivery · 15 Apr 2019

bramling said:
The way I see it the sounding of a horn is irrelevant in this case, as whistle boards are provided to assist users who are correctly using a crossing, in other words using the crossing to pass from one side of the railway to the other. Choosing to sit in the middle of the tracks having a chill-out isn’t how a crossing is intended to be used!

Sadly this really is a case of natural selection, quite simply it was a dumb thing to do, and unfortunately in this case luck ran out. No amount of legal posturing changes that - unless there’s an element to the story that we don’t know of course.

I agree with that and I think most people in the country would too. But that doesn't answer the question as to why horns are needed in the day and not at night. Sounding the horn whilst travelling at 55mph may have given enough time to move, it may have not. I just imagine it will stick in the back of some minds that this could've easily been someone walking across, who may have also been relying on the sounding of a horn too. These things are never easy.

bramling · 15 Apr 2019

LeeLivery said:
I agree with that and I think most people in the country would too. But that doesn't answer the question as to why horns are needed in the day and not at night. Sounding the horn whilst travelling at 55mph may have given enough time to move, it may have not. I just imagine it will stick in the back of some minds that this could've easily been someone walking across, who may have also been relying on the sounding of a horn too. These things are never easy.

Really the whistle boards should be observed at all times a crossing is open - i.e. all the time. However it’s one of life’s little compromises, where we can’t achieve perfection within the boundaries of facts of life. In reality most crossings are little used during night time, so to me it’s a fair compromise to favour people not getting their sleep disturbed - which can of course in itself have consequences through tiredness and fatigue.

Had this been a case of someone using the crossing correctly and getting caught out then there might be grounds to argue there was a deficiency in the arrangements. But the fact is the crossing was badly misused in a particularly stupid way. Tragic, but a fact of life that bad decisions have consequences.

On a related note, a good opportunity to spare a thought for shift workers whose sleep is routinely disturbed by daytime activities!

Fawkes Cat · 15 Apr 2019

LeeLivery said:
But that doesn't answer the question as to why horns are needed in the day and not at night.

I imagine - but do not know - that the argument goes that on the one hand horns cause greater disturbance at night when there is less background noise and typically people are trying to sleep, and on the other that fewer people are likely to be using crossings at night as well as there being fewer trains. So the chances of a person and a train coinciding are lower than during the day, and therefore the risk that needs to be mitigated is smaller, allowing the withdrawal of the horn at night.

Groningen · 15 Apr 2019

Interesting! So the traindriver at all time needs to blow his horn, because people could be on the railway tracks. I say that the mother has no chance to win. Well maybe she can go to the European Court while the UK is still in the EU. However she needs to be quick. What to think of the upcoming electric transportation revolution on the road. Except for the tires they make almost no noise.

Bletchleyite · 15 Apr 2019

Groningen said:
Interesting! So the traindriver at all time needs to blow his horn, because people could be on the railway tracks. I say that the mother has no chance to win. Well maybe she can go to the European Court while the UK is still in the EU. However she needs to be quick. What to think of the upcoming electric transportation revolution on the road. Except for the tires they make almost no noise.

A number of countries have mandated the addition of a sound to electric cars, mainly for reasons of accessibility (i.e. so blind/poorly sighted people are not threatened by silent cars) rather than to protect against stupidity (which, I'm sorry, however callous it might sound, is the cause of this incident, and I don't think we should mince our words on that as it might, like the hard-hitting videos shown to kids in the 1980s, actually get through the thick skulls of the people doing this kind of thing before the front end of a train does so).

cactustwirly · 15 Apr 2019

dgl said:
And I hope it ends with a fine for railway trespass, as whilst someone has lost their daughter maybe the fine bring some much needed publicity to the fact that you DON'T sit or stand between railway tracks. Just think what trauma the driver now has for something that is easily preventable but people just not being idiots.

It won't, it's a civil court who can't issue fines!

Spartacus · 15 Apr 2019

LeeLivery said:
However, I've often thought the night horn ban isn't a very good idea and I'd be rather surprised if a decent lawyer didn't say "Network Rail have Stop, Look Listen signs, often have videos saying people can't tell which way trains are coming from by just listening to approaching trains without horns and, deem it necessary for drivers to use horns boards in the daytime when visibility is better. So why are horns needed in the day but not a night?" That's not going to be an easy one to answer to a courtroom.

We're told to stop, look and listen when we cross the road, and cars don't sound their horns all the time and, as you say, trains make quite a lot of noise anyway, especially when they're a DMU under power, as was the case here. Which direction it was coming from surely wouldn't have been an issue here given the circumstances.

Llanigraham · 15 Apr 2019

I know comparisons with the road are generally frowned upon here, but it is worth noting that road legislation bans the use of vehicle horns between the hours of 11:30pm and 7:00am on roads subject to a 30 limit, except in an emergency. We seem to be roughly keeping to the same limits.
I have more compassion for the driver in this case than with the family.

al78 · 15 Apr 2019

It is a tragic case that someone did something idiotic and paid the ultimate price, and is ridiculous in the extreme that the mother is trying to get compensation for what was completely her daughters fault, at least assuming the mother found out her daughter was actually on the tracks. I'm inclined to think the mother is making snap judgements in a highly emotional state, in such situations people do lose sense of rationality and come up with all sorts of irrational ideas. The mother might back down once she has had time to come to terms with the loss and the facts.

Many years ago my nephew lost his life when he was walking along a dual carriageway (on the pavement) bouncing a ball. The ball bounced at a strange angle (maybe hit a stone) into the carriageway and he instinctively ran after it, into the path of a coach moving at 50 mph. A tragic accident from a moment of inattention, but my sister didn't dream of suing the highways authority (although the speed limit was reduced on that road soon after).

al78 · 15 Apr 2019

LeeLivery said:
I agree with that and I think most people in the country would too. But that doesn't answer the question as to why horns are needed in the day and not at night. Sounding the horn whilst travelling at 55mph may have given enough time to move, it may have not. I just imagine it will stick in the back of some minds that this could've easily been someone walking across, who may have also been relying on the sounding of a horn too. These things are never easy.

I assume the horns are not used at night because of the adverse effects of residents living in earshot. It would arguably be more dangerous to inflict sleep disturbance on people who have to go out in their car the next morning than not use horns at night. If someone is only using their hearing to cross a operational railway line then that is also careless, humans have the ability of sight and rotation of their neck to get more than 180 degree view of their surroundings, and they should use those abilities. If it is a smart-phone-dumb-user then put it away and get some spatial awareness of what is going on around you!

bluenoxid · 15 Apr 2019

Interesting case.

I assume that it hinges on the potential lack of review of the risks of the crossing after the policy change with the sounding of horns. A crossing with a higher risk of trespass should probably have been changed, upgraded or closed with the new policy change.

Network Rail like all property owners and occupiers have a duty of care to users and trespassers of their land and buildings.

Whilst I understand the frustration that this case was very avoidable, Network Rail have been found wanting at level crossings in a number of cases in the past decades that have resulted in deaths and injury. In a learning environment, you need to keep reviewing situations and their contributory factors

RichT54 · 15 Apr 2019

Didn't this policy to stop sounding horns at night come about because of pressure from MPs?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1549266/MPs-campaign-silences-train-horns-at-night.html

Thousands of people whose lives have been blighted by noisy train horns have been offered respite by Network Rail.
The company, which is responsible for railway track, has finally bowed to pressure from MPs and imposed new rules on drivers.
They have been told that they should no longer sound their train horns as a matter of routine between 11pm and 7am when approaching the nation's 2,800 footpath crossings.

Bletchleyite · 15 Apr 2019

bluenoxid said:
Network Rail like all property owners and occupiers have a duty of care to users and trespassers of their land and buildings.

I must admit I've long found this bizarre. Why should one have a duty of care to someone who is not supposed to be somewhere, and it is clear they should not be there? This is like depot trespass. You know you should not be in a railway depot, there is no reasonable expectation that it is a reasonable place for one to be under any circumstances other than being a railway employee or contractor.

A level crossing doesn't really fit that (as you are supposed to be there under certain conditions), though.

Bantamzen · 15 Apr 2019

If this case were not so tragic, it would be one for the social media group "Angry People In Local Newspapers". Community complains about the noise at night from train horns, then complain when they don't use them.

But being serious again, I hope that the verdict is not in favour of this action. Notwithstanding the length of time between the accident & the action, a decision against NR will risk setting a precedent that NR & TOCs will have to mitigate not only for people using the crossings correctly, but for people incorrectly using or trespassing on crossings and the rails around them.

bluenoxid said:
Interesting case.

I assume that it hinges on the potential lack of review of the risks of the crossing after the policy change with the sounding of horns. A crossing with a higher risk of trespass should probably have been changed, upgraded or closed with the new policy change.

Network Rail like all property owners and occupiers have a duty of care to users and trespassers of their land and buildings.

Whilst I understand the frustration that this case was very avoidable, Network Rail have been found wanting at level crossings in a number of cases in the past decades that have resulted in deaths and injury. In a learning environment, you need to keep reviewing situations and their contributory factors

Closing crossings like this may not reduce trespass incidents, if anything it could actually increase them if no alternative is built as people, particularly younger people would be used to using it regularly & might not be willing to walk around to other routes. It would be impossible to even begin to fully take the kind of measures need to prevent trespass & misuse or crossings, there are thousands of miles of lines in this country & it needs only a couple of feet of gap in any measures to allow trespassers to access the rails.

I'm afraid if the law continues to require companies to secure every last millimetre of railway property, the very face of our country will have to change dramatically or alternatively these risky railways will have to be shut down. Sorry, but someone sitting down in the middle of a railway line is taking unacceptable risks not only with their lives, but those legitimately using the railways. Its time to draw a distinction between companies being negligent, and people taking unnecessary risks. It isn't hard to educate young people into where they should not be, and the risks posed if they disregard this.

Spartacus · 15 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I must admit I've long found this bizarre. Why should one have a duty of care to someone who is not supposed to be somewhere, and it is clear they should not be there? This is like depot trespass. You know you should not be in a railway depot, there is no reasonable expectation that it is a reasonable place for one to be under any circumstances other than being a railway employee or contractor.

It's not even a particularly recent thing either, when studying I was told of a case where a shipyard was prosecuted because someone slipped under a railing protecting a dry dock (which seemed fair enough), so built a tall wall and was prosecuted for not having warnings on the wall when someone broke in, climbed the wall, then fell in!

ainsworth74 · 15 Apr 2019

I think we're done here for the time being. We're going back over ground which has be well trod over previously. Most recently during the equally horrible incident at Tyne Yard. At the end of the day a young girl has been killed, her family and close friend who was with her devastated by something they'll never recover from and a driver has also gone through something equally horrible. It's a sad case all around and I'm not sure berating the family and the girl who lost her life is going to help anyone.

Once the judge has rendered their verdict please feel free to bring that to our attention and we'll look at reopening the thread at the time. Otherwise this thread is locked.

ainsworth74 · 25 Apr 2019

Thanks to those that reported that a conclusion has been reached. I'm not convinced there is any need to re-open the thread for further discussion however for information the outcome is discussed in the linked article and quote below.

A teenager who was killed by a "silent" night train died because she did not "stop, look and listen", a judge ruled as she dismissed the girl's mum's claim to damages.

Brilliant straight-A student Milena Gagic, 16, died instantly when she was hit by the night train at a crossing in Hipperholme, Halifax , in December 2014.

She and her best friend, Amelia Hustwick, had gone to the railway after midnight to chat because it was “a nice place to hang out”, a court heard.

The pair were sitting between the actual train tracks, “laughing and giggling” because they were convinced trains did not run at night.

Both girls had also grown up in the local area and believed that, if any train did in fact approach, it would sound its horn.

But since 2007, a “night time quiet period” had been ushered in, barring horns between 11pm and 7am, "lulling her into a false sense of security", her mum, Leanne, claimed.

Following the aspiring zoologist's death, Mrs Gagic sued Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, blaming a lack of signs warning of the overnight quiet period for the tragedy.

But after a trial at Central London County Court, Judge Heather Baucher threw out the mum's claim to £22,000 damages from the rail infrastructure body.

A sign informing pedestrians to "stop, look, listen" was next to the crossing gate, which was a "perfectly adequate" way of warning users, she said.

"In my view, it couldn't have been clearer," she said.

...

Dismissing Mrs Gagic's claim against Network Rail - which she said was not about money - the judge paid tribute to the mum's dignity throughout her ordeal.

"Milena's death was a bitter blow for the family to sustain," she said.

"I hope that the conclusion of this claim may allow Mrs Gagic some solace and an opportunity to move on with her life."

Network Rail said it would not seek its costs of the case from Mrs Gagic.

Source

I don't see that there is anything add to that other than reiterating that it is a desperately sad case that has seen a young girl killed and multiple people and families living with the results for years to come.

Mother sues Network Rail over "silent trains" role in daughter's death

On Moderation

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Forum Staff