Question

The Hagenbeck-Wallace Circus was the country's third largest circus during the early 1900s, and was considered to be the Midwestern version of PT Barnum's East Coast show. Trains were the transportation method of choice for many circuses, as they could travel faster and more efficiently, and therefore increase their number of shows (and consequently, their profits). However, there were a lot of new risks that came along with traveling by train. The Hagenbeck-Wallace Circus faced a number of devastating accidents in the early part of the 20th ercentury, including a couple of train crashes and a flooded river that wiped out many of their animals and much of their equipment. The disaster in 1918, however, was by far the worst. The video explains many of the specific details of the accident. It's also important to understand that the sleeper cars on trains were generally made of wood, and lighted by oil lamps. Upon impact, the oil lamps started a fire; many of the victims died within the first 30 seconds of the crash. Amazingly, the circus only missed two performances. Other circuses stepped up and provided equipment, performers, and extra crew members to help them finish out their season. Many of the victims were never identified, and there are still dozens who were never accounted for. The train engineer was charged with manslaughter, but the trial ultimately ended in a deadlocked jury and a mistrial. The prosecutor opted not to re-try the case, and all of the charges were dropped.

PROCESS JOURNAL (at least 300 words): What are your thoughts on the charges brought against the train engineer? Should anyone have been held responsible for this accident?

Answer 1

Train accidents are analysed before making an accuse on a party. There are multiple parties involved in railway system. They are train engineer, conductor, pedestrians, railway companies, equipment manufacturer etc. From the provided details, one can understand that the accidents have happened due to crashes and obstacles and they have been amplified by the making of the sleeper car inside the train.

Firstly if the train crash is against an object other than train, then the train engineer should be responsible for not being vigilant. If it is collision between trains, then it is the fault of railway signalling system, which can be State-owned. Again, it is the responsibility of the railway signalling system to direct rail traffic. Thinking of the make of sleeper car, it is the fault of the railway company.

Upon analysis, one can fairly understand that there is a shared blame between railway signalling system, railway company, and train engineer. Blaming one party alone is wrong.

Of course, the mentioned parties should be held responsible for the accident. One cannot make a heinous mistake and do away with it.