Husker Hank Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "tossing other sources of ignition" and "other
> cigarette" brings forth a delightful (if highly
> unlikely) image of hippies throwing Molotov
> cocktails from the vestibule. If you need to use
> logic instead of a fire investigator's report the
> concept of Occam's Razor comes to mind. If there
> is a fire within a few minutes after a locomotive
> spewing hot cinders has passed then the locomotive
> is certainly the most likely culprit. But we'll
> just have to see what the report says. The big
> legal question is whether the railroad took proper
> precautions or if running a steam locomotive under
> such conditions is negligence per se or even
> reckless. I can't imagine the possible claims from
> the $10,000,000 spent fighting the fire (so far)
> to the incovenience associated with having to
> evacuate one's home. The cases should clog the La
> Plata County District Court for years to come.
>
> Husker Hank
> Ex Legal Beagle
> Durango CO
Any legal action with an eye toward holding the railroad responsible for ALL of the damages would be pretty short-sighted, at least in my humble opinion. A lot of hotels, restaurants and shops in the Durango area owe a substantial portion of their income every year to the tourism that the railroad brings and I think they'd find that town a rather different place if the railroad were gone.
If I understand the situation correctly, no structures or dwellings have been lost in this fire. Most of the costs have been associated with fire-fighting. Folks need to bear in mind that as tinder-dry as this area was, it was primed for a big fire from most any ignition source, including a lightning strike. I certainly don't think it can be successfully argued that if you take the railroad away, this region will never have another large wildfire. It's a risk associated with living there, just like the risk of tornadoes is something that folks in Oklahoma live with for much of the year.
/Kevin Madore
