Originally Posted by
u235
They can just say... We don't want a walkway attached to our bridge because we don't want to be at risk or responsible in an accident if people die or as a minimum we have to pay to repair it. Look at this case.. If there was no foot bridge in HF.. Other than the recovery of their own cars and some cleanup and minimal landscaping, they would be done now.
That's precisely how we look at it: If your facility is not there we have no additional exposure if something goes awry, whether due to negligence or not. (Sometimes stuff happens without any negligence on anyone's part.) And it's not just in cases of derailments. If, for example, someone wipes out on their bike when the walkway is wet and their is a law suit, everyone involved with the bridge is going to get sued. The railroad is seen as having deep pockets. so full indemnification by the facility's "sponsor" is demanded. It's also not limited to people-related facilities. We take the same stance when someone wants to put something as simple as a sewer or water line under our right of way.