From: calvin@remove.daxack.ca   
      
   Adam H. Kerman (ahk@chinet.com) said...   
   >   
   >He still had to return in time to check that the consist was being held;   
   >the brakes wouldn't hold forever, given the insufficient number of manually   
   >set brakes. So it's his behavior throughout the incident.   
      
   The question that the court will have to deal with is whether he BELIEVED   
   that the number of manual brakes that he set were sufficient. If so, then   
   liability falls on those (the company) who made him believe that.   
      
   From what I understand, the MMA's company policy regarding minimum hand   
   brake requirements were something like HALF of what Transport Canada has   
   recommended. If the employee followed company policy to a tee, it can be   
   difficult to argue in a court case against that person that it was his   
   responsibility to do his own research in case company policy was not   
   adequate.   
      
   So, if he followed proper practices for his job, the issue falls with the   
   company for creating an internal standard that was less than the recommended   
   practice. Even the question of whether doing so is a criminal act is   
   dubious. However, in the case of a civil law suit, it is likely that the   
   company would be found liable for doing this. Even then, they possibly   
   might be found only partly liable, as the question of whether Transport   
   Canada should have made minimum hand brakes a mandatory rule instead of   
   just a recommended practice.   
      
   --   
   Calvin Henry-Cotnam   
   "Unusual or extreme reactions to events caused by negligence   
    are imaginable, but not reasonably foreseeable"   
     - Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, May 2008   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)