kcsivils Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I realize the Harper family cannot just shut down
> the D&SNG. I am sure there are regulatory hoops
> that would have to be jumped through first.
>
> But for the sake of argument, let's say the crews
> and employees of the D&SNG went of strike and
> Harper did not hire replacement workers to cross
> the lines. Nothing moves. No trains, sharp
> reduction in the number of tourists visiting to
> the Durango area.
>
> Far fetched scenario, but still.
>
> Does this give the local businesses who rely,
> whether they want to admit it or not, on the
> operation of the D&SNG for a significant portion
> of their business the right to sue for lost
> revenue?
>
> In this scenario does the Hermosa Creek Grill have
> the right to sue the railroad for lost revenue?
>
> My point is the railroad didn't operate because of
> the fire. Because the railroad did not run trains,
> the tourists did not come in large numbers and
> spend money at local businesses. IF the railroad
> is found liable for the fire AND the Hermosa Creek
> Grill had fire damage, then I think an argument
> can be made for damages to some extent.
>
> But lost revenue? I'm not sure. Suppose the
> railroad had shut down until the line could be
> repaired after the flood damage (no trains
> operated from Rockwood)? Would that mean other
> businesses could sue for lost revenue?
>
> The losses Hermosa Creek Grill suffered were
> largely due to lack of trains being operated, not
> the fire. That is the argument I would make as the
> D&SNG's attorney. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and
> have no clue about the law, be it the spirit of
> all applicable laws or the letter of said laws.
Knowing the location of the Hermosa Creek Grill, I'm betting a significant amount of its business comes from locals who live in the area, not from wondering tourists.
