Because there is an inherent vigilance decrement in humans performing inspection tasks over long periods of time, I concluded it was not reasonable to expect the worker to detect all of the flamers exiting the oven and assigning the “fire watch” job to a human was not an adequate means of mitigating the fire hazard. Why Would Someone Stop Their Car on Railroad Tracks as a Train Approached Unless They Were Committing Suicide? In this case, an elderly driver pulled their car onto train tracks while waiting to turn left at a permissive green traffic light. While they were stopped on the tracks waiting for an opportunity to turn, the traffic light turned red. The driver stayed on the tracks as cross traffic began to enter and proceed through the intersection ahead of their vehicle at approximately 50 mph. Soon after the light turned red, the train crossing warning lights activated and a crossing gate came down behind them. Several vehicles had stopped behind the crossing gate, blocking their vehicle from behind. As the train approached on the tracks, the driver attempted to back up, but did not drive through the crossing gate or back completely off the tracks. The driver was struck and killed by the oncoming train. I was asked to investigate whether the driver’s actions and inactions in response to the oncoming train were reasonable from a human factors perspective. As part of my investigation, I analyzed whether the driver’s actions and inactions were consistent with the known capabilities and limitations of human beings responding to a complex situation under stress. I evaluated the driver’s decision to stay on the tracks based on an analysis of the information available to them at the time of the collision, the available response choices and the fact they were under significant stress from an impending collision and under time pressure to make a decision. In this case, the driver was confronted with a collision hazard from every direction — 50 mph cross-traffic to the front, a crossing gate and vehicles to the rear, and a train approaching from the side. Given those circumstances, it would be reasonable for a driver to perceive it was not safe to proceed either forward, backward, or sideways. In addition, it would be reasonable for a driver to remain inside their vehicle (i.e., to not attempt to exit the car before the train arrived) for several reasons. A driver may not even consider the option of exiting the vehicle simply because people under the stress of perceived danger and time pressure often do not develop or consider every possible alternative course of action before selecting one. In addition, it would be reasonable for a driver to perceive there was insufficient time available to physically exit the vehicle before the train arrived. Lastly, it would be reasonable for a driver to decide against exiting the vehicle for reasons such as anticipating the light would turn green before the train arrived, anticipating there would be a break in traffic allowing them to proceed forward into the intersection before the train arrived, or anticipating the train would stop before colliding with their vehicle. Therefore, I concluded the driver’s actions and inactions in this case were consistent with the known capabilities and limitations of human beings and were, therefore, reasonable given the information available to them at the time of the collision. Why Use a Human Factors Expert? Although the specific circumstances of the cases I described above are unique, the underlying human factors issues addressed in those cases and the methods I used to address them are common across many cases. When deciding on your expert strategy for a case, consider the benefits of retaining a human factors expert to address some of the human performance or human behavior issues from a scientific perspective. A human factors approach can be particularly beneficial in cases where the standard of care, laws, regulations or policies may be contrary to the science of human factors, when other types of expert investigations yield unfavorable opinions and when the jury is likely to have common misconceptions about a particular human factors issue. Lastly, a human factors approach can simply provide additional scientific support when addressing important human performance issues in a case. They Did What?! Analyzing Human Behavior continued from p. 45 46 Trial Lawyer | Winter 2025
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Nzc3ODM=