http://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-midnight-rider-crew-member-sarah-jones-settle/story?id=27031497
The parents of Sarah Jones, the 27-year-old camera assistant who was killed in a train accident on the Georgia set of "Midnight Rider," announced today they have reached a settlement with several defendants in the wrongful death suit they filed against the film’s producers and corporations who own the railroad tracks where the accident took place.
According to a statement from the Jones' family, the terms of the settlement are confidential but the defendants in the settlement include veteran filmmaker Randall Miller, who was writing, producing and directing "Midnight Rider," and was also shooting a full scene at the train trestle when the accident happened, witnesses told "20/20." Other defendants named in the settlement included Miller’s wife and producer Jody Savin, the film's location manager, Charley Baxter, and other producers.
However, CSX Transportation, Meddin Studios LLC and executive producer Jeffrey N. Gant of Meddin Studios remain in the civil suit, according to the family’s statement.
“Richard and Elizabeth Jones’ objectives in filing this lawsuit, after the death of their 27-year-old daughter, Sarah, have been clear and unwavering,” Jones family attorney Jeff Harris told ABC News in a statement today. “To find out what happened on the day of their daughter’s death, determine who was responsible, hold those who made bad decisions accountable and ensure this kind of tragedy never happens again on another film set. Today, we are another step closer to fully achieving those objectives.”
Footage Shows 'Midnight Rider' Cast, Crew Running From Train
'Midnight Rider' Hairstylist Describes When Train Hit Her, Killed Fellow Crew Member
William Hurt Withdraws From Allman Biopic 'Midnight Rider'
Sarah Jones was one of more than a dozen movie crew and cast members, including Academy Award-winning actor William Hurt, who walked onto an active train trestle high above a Georgia river in February. With the crew was a metal-framed hospital bed, a prop for filming a dream sequence for “Midnight Rider,” a film based on the life of rock star Gregg Allman.
Jones, who had worked multiple seasons on the show "Vampire Diaries" before taking the job on "Midnight Rider," was in charge of wrangling the camera gear.
While Jones and the rest of the crew were preparing to start filming, witnesses told "20/20" two trains passed by. After the second train, the crew moved out on the bridge to place a hospital bed and the camera on the train trestle.
The owner of the land adjacent to the bridge had allegedly given the production crew permission to be there and had also reportedly told them that only two trains would use the track that day.
There were no railroad officials or medical help present on set, witnesses told "20/20," nor was the film's location manager, Charley Baxter. He hadn't been able to obtain permission from the railroad to film on the trestle bridge. Baxter emailed the railroad's refusal to producers just before 11 a.m. that day.
Moments after the crew was in position and filming began, CSX train Q12519 with two locomotives and 37 freight cars came barreling down the track at an estimated 57 miles per hour, according to a National Transportation Safety Board report on their website.
Eyewitnesses told “20/20” that the cast and crew had to run along a narrow pathway toward the oncoming train to escape. The train struck the hospital bed, and killed Jones. Six other crew members were injured in the accident.
Miller and three other members of the "Midnight Rider" team were charged with involuntary manslaughter and criminal trespassing. They are expected to go to trial in March.
Miller and his wife, producer Jody Savin, did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
On Oct. 31, 2014, attorneys for Miller and Savin issued a statement to "20/20" that said, in part, "Randall Miller and Jody Savin have intense sorrow and regret over the tragic incident that occurred on February 20, 2014, causing the death of Sarah Jones... they believed there was no danger present in filming on the tracks that day because they believed they had permission to be on the tracks from Rayonier and CSX... They had no reason to believe that anyone would be placed in danger... They care deeply for their film crew and the actors working on their films. They will live with the sorrow of Sarah's death for the rest of their lives." Read their full statement at the end of this story.
Attorney Jeff Harris filed the wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of Jones' parents in May, which alleged that the film site was “unreasonably dangerous," accusing rock star Gregg Allman and the producers of the film of overlooking "minimum safety precautions" and shooting the scene without permission.
This is good. I think this effectively ends the civil matter as I'm guessing Meddin and Gant couldn't kick in any money and CSX wouldn't. Meddin has been in bankruptcy twice in the last few yrs and I'm guessing it is judgment-proof. CSX don't play, and I opine that it will ultimately be let out on summary judgment, meaning that under the undisputed facts, the judge can find that as a matter of law CSX is not liable.
I bet plaintiff's counsel will tell the Jones that, and we likely will see them dismiss the remaining defendants in the near future.
While this does not directly affect the criminal prosecution, it certainly cannot hurt the defendants' chances to have made restitution. The prosecutor can consider that in a plea deal, and the judge can consider it in sentencing.
I hope whatever the Jones got, it made the defendants hurt a great deal.
“Richard and Elizabeth Jones’ objectives in filing this lawsuit.... have been clear and unwavering.....To find out what happened on the day of their daughter’s death, determine who was responsible, hold those who made bad decisions accountable and ensure this kind of tragedy never happens again on another film set. Today, we are another step closer to fully achieving those objectives.”
How does settling out of court for cash reveal what happened and who was responsible?
If these are your sole motivations, you decline all offers to settle out of court and allow the matter to proceed to trial. What is the point in settling out of court unless your main motivation is financial, or you are unsure of the strength of your case?
In fact, since there is a parallel criminal prosecution, why issue civil proceedings at all if you only want to know what happened?
Call me cynical or naïve but....No, just call me cynical.
quote:
“Richard and Elizabeth Jones’ objectives in filing this lawsuit.... have been clear and unwavering.....To find out what happened on the day of their daughter’s death, determine who was responsible, hold those who made bad decisions accountable and ensure this kind of tragedy never happens again on another film set. Today, we are another step closer to fully achieving those objectives.”How does settling out of court for cash reveal what happened and who was responsible?
If these are your sole motivations, you decline all offers to settle out of court and allow the matter to proceed to trial. What is the point in settling out of court unless your main motivation is financial, or you are unsure of the strength of your case?
In fact, since there is a parallel criminal prosecution, why issue civil proceedings at all if you only want to know what happened?
Call me cynical or naïve but....No, just call me cynical.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying. They may in fact have honorable motives such as "hold those who made bad decisions accountable and ensure this kind of tragedy never happens again on another film set." That does not mean they were not due a financial settlement on top of that.
However, CSX Transportation ... remain in the civil suit ...
..hadn't been able to obtain permission from the railroad to film on the trestle bridge.
I'm no lawyer, but am having a hard time seeing how CSX can be held liable here.
quote:
“Richard and Elizabeth Jones’ objectives in filing this lawsuit.... have been clear and unwavering.....To find out what happened on the day of their daughter’s death, determine who was responsible, hold those who made bad decisions accountable and ensure this kind of tragedy never happens again on another film set. Today, we are another step closer to fully achieving those objectives.”How does settling out of court for cash reveal what happened and who was responsible?
If these are your sole motivations, you decline all offers to settle out of court and allow the matter to proceed to trial. What is the point in settling out of court unless your main motivation is financial, or you are unsure of the strength of your case?
In fact, since there is a parallel criminal prosecution, why issue civil proceedings at all if you only want to know what happened?
Call me cynical or naïve but....No, just call me cynical.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying. They may in fact have honorable motives such as "hold those who made bad decisions accountable and ensure this kind of tragedy never happens again on another film set." That does not mean they were not due a financial settlement on top of that.
I think what Rob is gettin' at is that certain parties seem to be buying their way out of punishment. That Sarah's family has been financially compensated is one thing. But for me, there are much larger issues here of neglect of safety, willful trespassing and ignoring REFUSALS of permission to film in a dangerous location. Somewhere - somebody made conscious decisions to place crew and talent in harms way. No amount of money will ever discount this fact. In short - somebody deserves to go to jail over this regardless of monetary compensations.
I don't see how any sane jury can find CSX culpable. They issued refusals of permission in writing!
quote:
“Richard and Elizabeth Jones’ objectives in filing this lawsuit.... have been clear and unwavering.....To find out what happened on the day of their daughter’s death, determine who was responsible, hold those who made bad decisions accountable and ensure this kind of tragedy never happens again on another film set. Today, we are another step closer to fully achieving those objectives.”How does settling out of court for cash reveal what happened and who was responsible?
If these are your sole motivations, you decline all offers to settle out of court and allow the matter to proceed to trial. What is the point in settling out of court unless your main motivation is financial, or you are unsure of the strength of your case?
In fact, since there is a parallel criminal prosecution, why issue civil proceedings at all if you only want to know what happened?
Call me cynical or naïve but....No, just call me cynical.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying. They may in fact have honorable motives such as "hold those who made bad decisions accountable and ensure this kind of tragedy never happens again on another film set." That does not mean they were not due a financial settlement on top of that.
Sorry, I'm not sure how I can make my point any more clearly but I will try anyway.
1. The quote states that the Jones parents' objectives in making a civil claim were to "find out what happened on the day of their daughter’s death, determine who was responsible, hold those who made bad decisions accountable and ensure this kind of tragedy never happens again on another film set."
2. How does settling out of court achieve any of those objectives? Today we are none the wiser as to who, why, what, how etc and won't be as the Jones family have "dropped hands" in return for - presumably - a sum of money.
3. If you really do only have finding out the truth as an objective, you allow the case to proceed to trial where those facts can be exposed and legal arguments aired. You do not bail out half way through when the money comes to the table.
4. And, finally, if you want to know the truth, why not leave it to the criminal proceedings which are ongoing to establish the facts? The Jones family are deserving of some compensation but spare us the "clear and unwavering" search for the truth story at the same time as you are ensuring that the truth remains hidden, if only temporarily.
Miller and three other members of the "Midnight Rider" team were charged with involuntary manslaughter and criminal trespassing. They are expected to go to trial in March.
Shavian: I assumed from that quote that the Jones family had settled out of court in a civil suit only but the criminal trial will still move forward. Am I incorrect in assuming that?
Civil suits against CSX Transportation, Meddin Studios LLC and executive producer Jeffrey N. Gant of Meddin Studios remain active, but those appear to be minor players.
Criminal case is ongoing.
Criminal case is ongoing.
Then I fail to see what your big issue is with the Jones family for settling out of court in the civil trial. Even if the civil trial had gone to termination, all they would stand to get if they won was $$$ anyway. It would not hold the perpetrators of this tragedy criminally liable. So just what IS your point?
[Edited on 11/20/2014 by robslob]
quote:
“Richard and Elizabeth Jones’ objectives in filing this lawsuit.... have been clear and unwavering.....To find out what happened on the day of their daughter’s death, determine who was responsible, hold those who made bad decisions accountable and ensure this kind of tragedy never happens again on another film set. Today, we are another step closer to fully achieving those objectives.”How does settling out of court for cash reveal what happened and who was responsible?
If these are your sole motivations, you decline all offers to settle out of court and allow the matter to proceed to trial. What is the point in settling out of court unless your main motivation is financial, or you are unsure of the strength of your case?
In fact, since there is a parallel criminal prosecution, why issue civil proceedings at all if you only want to know what happened?
Call me cynical or naïve but....No, just call me cynical.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying. They may in fact have honorable motives such as "hold those who made bad decisions accountable and ensure this kind of tragedy never happens again on another film set." That does not mean they were not due a financial settlement on top of that.
Sorry, I'm not sure how I can make my point any more clearly but I will try anyway.
1. The quote states that the Jones parents' objectives in making a civil claim were to "find out what happened on the day of their daughter’s death, determine who was responsible, hold those who made bad decisions accountable and ensure this kind of tragedy never happens again on another film set."
2. How does settling out of court achieve any of those objectives? Today we are none the wiser as to who, why, what, how etc and won't be as the Jones family have "dropped hands" in return for - presumably - a sum of money.
3. If you really do only have finding out the truth as an objective, you allow the case to proceed to trial where those facts can be exposed and legal arguments aired. You do not bail out half way through when the money comes to the table.
4. And, finally, if you want to know the truth, why not leave it to the criminal proceedings which are ongoing to establish the facts? The Jones family are deserving of some compensation but spare us the "clear and unwavering" search for the truth story at the same time as you are ensuring that the truth remains hidden, if only temporarily.
I hesitate to again weigh in w/ my education and experience (more than 50 cases tried to a jury in GA over the last 28 yrs) since it will likely be ignored, but here goes:
I would not get hung up on that statement about seeking the truth, that is just boilerplate that lawyers in high profile cases tell their clients to say. But there have been several months of discovery in the case, so I'm sure the facts have now been well established to the lawyers and clients. In that sense, truth has been found.
Proceeding to trial will not expose any new truths, unless the lawyers have not done their jobs. The only result is you put your case into the hands of a possible unpredictable judge and jury who can never know as much as the parties themselves. If I had a nickel for every time a judge told opposing counsel and me: "you two need to settle this as you know your cases better than me," well you know the rest.
One of the most valuable services lawyers perform is to predict what will happen at trial. I have a feeling both sets of lawyers knew pretty well, and so they were able to settle. No sense in going through a trial then.
The bottom line is the Jones deserved compensation and they got it. The criminal defendants, I predict, will be punished in a significant way.
Discovery before settlement would bring the facts to light - if those charged answered truthfully
quote:
“Richard and Elizabeth Jones’ objectives in filing this lawsuit.... have been clear and unwavering.....To find out what happened on the day of their daughter’s death, determine who was responsible, hold those who made bad decisions accountable and ensure this kind of tragedy never happens again on another film set. Today, we are another step closer to fully achieving those objectives.”How does settling out of court for cash reveal what happened and who was responsible?
If these are your sole motivations, you decline all offers to settle out of court and allow the matter to proceed to trial. What is the point in settling out of court unless your main motivation is financial, or you are unsure of the strength of your case?
In fact, since there is a parallel criminal prosecution, why issue civil proceedings at all if you only want to know what happened?
Call me cynical or naïve but....No, just call me cynical.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying. They may in fact have honorable motives such as "hold those who made bad decisions accountable and ensure this kind of tragedy never happens again on another film set." That does not mean they were not due a financial settlement on top of that.
Sorry, I'm not sure how I can make my point any more clearly but I will try anyway.
1. The quote states that the Jones parents' objectives in making a civil claim were to "find out what happened on the day of their daughter’s death, determine who was responsible, hold those who made bad decisions accountable and ensure this kind of tragedy never happens again on another film set."
2. How does settling out of court achieve any of those objectives? Today we are none the wiser as to who, why, what, how etc and won't be as the Jones family have "dropped hands" in return for - presumably - a sum of money.
3. If you really do only have finding out the truth as an objective, you allow the case to proceed to trial where those facts can be exposed and legal arguments aired. You do not bail out half way through when the money comes to the table.
4. And, finally, if you want to know the truth, why not leave it to the criminal proceedings which are ongoing to establish the facts? The Jones family are deserving of some compensation but spare us the "clear and unwavering" search for the truth story at the same time as you are ensuring that the truth remains hidden, if only temporarily.
I hesitate to again weigh in w/ my education and experience (more than 50 cases tried to a jury in GA over the last 28 yrs) since it will likely be ignored, but here goes:
I would not get hung up on that statement about seeking the truth, that is just boilerplate that lawyers in high profile cases tell their clients to say. But there have been several months of discovery in the case, so I'm sure the facts have now been well established to the lawyers and clients. In that sense, truth has been found.
Proceeding to trial will not expose any new truths, unless the lawyers have not done their jobs. The only result is you put your case into the hands of a possible unpredictable judge and jury who can never know as much as the parties themselves. If I had a nickel for every time a judge told opposing counsel and me: "you two need to settle this as you know your cases better than me," well you know the rest.
One of the most valuable services lawyers perform is to predict what will happen at trial. I have a feeling both sets of lawyers knew pretty well, and so they were able to settle. No sense in going through a trial then.
The bottom line is the Jones deserved compensation and they got it. The criminal defendants, I predict, will be punished in a significant way.
That was very clear Brock, thanks... and I think the last thing that you did not discuss is that any civil trial would be a long and drawn out affair that would be painful and stressful to Jones' parents. If the case brought in the civil suit was weak, there would be little incentive for the defendants to settle. this settlement came very quickly (in the legal sense), so i assume the case against Miller was very strong.
