Dale Haralson - Comments

I have been handling railroad crossing litigation since 1966. I have processed and consulted on literally hundreds of cases in the last 43 years. It is critical to recognize that railroads are corporate entities existing for the purpose of making money for their shareholders. If properly maintaining crossiings cleared of vegetation results in a reduction of property damages and claims paid out then the RR's will clear and maintain the crossings. If you give them (or the states) immunity from state tort liability they no longer have the motivation to keep the vegetation clear. I am attaching a letter from Richard K. Reynolds that explains the vegetation control program of Union Pacific RR as presented to CSX and BNSF. The letter states that after insituting a vegetation control programs there had not been a single collision at the cleared crossings and there was such a saving on litigation that the program was instituted system wide. As to whether or not UP would fund the program Mr. Reynolds said that the savings was so great that it was a "No Brainer". The greatest motivation for states and/or the RR's to provide crossing safety is to recommend that they adopt and follow the sight triangle formulas in the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook based on the permissible speed of the autos and trains. Then if they fail to follow the formulas under the state tort law they can be held legally responsible for deaths and injuries that result. When the RRs were responsible for putting up gates and lights before the availability of federal funding in 1973 they would do so at their own expense. Federal preemption and state immunity has defeated the economic incentive to install and maintain safe crossings. This regulation, if passed with the immunity/preemption language will only provide additional disinsentive for crossing safety. Dale Haralson Attorney at Law