Merseyrail James St Fatality - Guard Questioned!!!???

[Ferret]

The prosecution will almost certainly bring it up to sway the jury though.

I completely agree, but it should only have relevance if the Guard was equally lax at James Street.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . the trouble I have with the whole scenario is when do we become responsible for our actions? when we pass out as a guard we sign to say we understand and accept the rules and regulations of our profession, if we do not follow the rules are we responsible or not? in my mind yes we are and we have to face the consequences of our actions, . . . .

That's a very good question. I'm going to answer at length and hope that this helps.
I am unable to give you a definitive answer, but rather I can give you some background to how that decision is often determined. N.B. This post is not a response to the Merseyrail matter.

I've been in the High Court during 6 or 7 transport-related claims in recent months, and in all but two of these, the claim was against the employing Company and not the employee. We can safely assume that the Claimant was advised to pursue damages against the Company for the simple reason that the Company is likely to be able to pay any enormous compensation claim whereas the individual is not. (In the 2 exceptions, the individuals were exceptionally wealthy and flamboyant characters, with international reputations and, er, 'powerful' connections).
In each case, the Claim was directed at different elements of the employing Companies (procedures, policies, data, equipment etc.), but the specified employee was also required to give Evidence and to be Cross Examined and had clearly been briefed by the Company beforehand just as apparently as the Companies were equally clearly briefing Counsel.

I should add that the enthusiasm for compensation claims has now reached quite depressing heights, and the mass of complex and detailled expert evidence produced by each side, and heard over several days, would probably make the eyes water of those who seek investment in infrastructure!

Perhaps even more depressing is the disconnection between fault and blame. (This is a distinction which I suspect many commentators on here overlook. To illustrate, a motorcyclist admitting to have been driving about 20mph over the speed limit, and driving in the hatched central reservation and at times in the opposite carriageway hit a vehicle emerging from a side juntion on the left and incurred debilitating injuries.
The motorcyclist accepted that he was at fault.
The motorcyclist's Claim was that the driver of the emerging vehicle was to blame.
The claim was by the motorcyclist against the vehicle driver's employer, for life-long disabilities.).

Responsibility, then, is a moveable feast - first it is moved to whover is best able to pay. Second it is targetted at those Corporate policymakers/decision makers whose historic decisions (on procedures or equipment designs) can be most successfully challenged with the benefit of hindsight. In one well known case, the Guard wwas almost disregarded by the injured claimant - the attack was directed at dispatch policies, unit design and platform facilities, all of which were decisions made months, years or decades before the incident.

It's not true that claims are generally made against the individual employees who are probably culpable if there is a wealthier body against which a claim may succeed.
When the claim is in the other direction (Corporate body against the individual. e.g. Great Heck) then all legal expertise will be directed at maximising the claim against that individual.

I hope this helps, but sadly I suspect it will only increase our collective misery about the state of UK legal practice.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Having just written an essay on the role of fault in law, it is a surprisingly difficult thing to establish!

 

[BestWestern]

It's very sad to see a fellow colleague in the industry (though employed by a different TOC) in such a very serious situation, and the person concerned has my sympathy. No doubt he started his shift expecting nothing out of the ordinary, and is now staring in the face of a life changing nightmare.

Having said that, it is fair to remember that all Guards have a very real duty of care to the public, and we are expected - clearly by the law as well as by our employers - to conduct that duty properly and in full, at all times. I don't claim to be beyond fault, none of us are, but I can say that I don't willfully neglect my duties whilst I'm at work. As with most of my colleagues, I appreciate that it is these duties which justify my wages, and which keep both me and my passengers safe and well. Sadly - and this isn't a statement of fact in the Merseyrail case since we don't yet know - there are those who feel that things such as proper door procedure and safe dispatch processes are of less importance than maxing out on tickets or sitting in the back reading the paper, and happily disregard what they know they should be doing. They're in the minority, but we all know they're out there, and they know who they are. They do nobody any favours, least of all themselves.


This sorry situation reminds us all in the grade of just how easily things can go wrong, and just how badly it can turn out

 

[Anon Mouse]

My shift yesterday demonstrated how easily things could have gone wrong and all through the actions of passengers who were mostly drunk. I had passengers trying to force the doors open for their late running freinds, then messing around on the platform thinking they will be able to get on. They moved out the way to allow me to safely complete platform duties while other drunks started asking questions, shouting abuse and flicking reverse V signs. Then at the next station a group of lads had to be told to stand beyond the yellow line, who then beyond the line started running alongside the train shouting abuse at a rival football fan. Then at the subsequent station a passenger took 5 attempts of me shouting for him to stand back who, seemingly ignored me and for a random passenger to tap his shoulder, point at me and then the yellow line before he moved. It is frightning as we all know, regardless of peoples drunkeness, ignorance and even stupidity who will get dragged through the courts, possibly prosecuted and maybe sent down. It seems that people in this Country no longer take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[mrpsb]

12 laymen/women will not necessarily have experience of the unpredictability of drunks in general, and an understanding of railway procedures.

They probably won't, no, but they won't need to. The judge will direct them as to exactly what the prosecution needs to have proven (and that really means proven) to secure a conviction.

 

[blacknight]

My thoughts are both family of this young girl who as tragically died as a result of this accident & to the guard involved in this incident.
Trouble with case based on CCTV evidence is it usually shows a view not available to guard on platform at time of accident.
From report in paper she was clear of train when doors closed putting shoes back on, so guard would have appeared from that report to have closed the passenger doors correctly, so case hinges on final safety check being made before giving proceed, which is where this case differs greatly from incident at Brentwood in Jan 2011(RAIB Report 19/2011). In both cases train left with passenger in an unsafe position & could be argued by lawyer that passenger contributed to accident & staff failed to spot the danger but only one to my knowledge as ended in prosecution being made.

 

[amcluesent]

People could be reading this who end up on a Jury -

True, but anyone with a unusual interest in railtravel would likely be challenged as a jury member by the defence council

 

[ukrob]

I really do not see the need to close this thread - there are balanced views from both 'sides' and nobody is attacking anyone else.

 

[DownSouth]

People could be reading this who end up on a Jury

If the lawyers involved are competent, people who have been reading up on the case in specialised scenes like this board would be disqualified from serving on the jury for this case. Reading about the case here is very different to a potential juror having a vague recollection of seeing the incident reported in mainstream mass media at the time.

 

[rob001uk]

This popped up on North West Today earlier. The guard has now appeared at magistrates and the case refferred to the crown court for the 8th March.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/02/23/merseyrail-guard-christopher-mcgee-appears-in-court-over-death-of-georgia-varley-at-liverpool-train-station-100252-30392243/

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I wish him all the best as it was obviously an accident, however even if half the stories that the majority of us have heard are true it isn't looking very good for him, A life was lost and now the court will find out what happened and who ultimately is to blame, let justice do its job.

 

[455driver]

A life was lost and now the court will find out what happened and who ultimately is to blame, let justice do its job.

A 16 year old girl went out, got drunk (illegally as she was under-age) and was unable to control her limbs and fell between the train and platform as the train pulled away.

Now obviously it isnt the girls fault she was drunk, was unable to stand up or fell between the train so therefore it must be somone elses fault. The easiest person to blame is the guard as the only important bit is the last 5 minutes and the previous 3 hours where her (supposed) friends allowed her to get blind drunk and make her own way home has no bearing on the eventual outcome whatsoever.

Justice my #@&%.