Skip to main content

Emergency workers work on the site of the train wreck in Lac Megantic, Que., on July 12, 2013.

Mathieu Belanger/REUTERS

The engineer of the train that derailed, exploded and killed 47 people in Lac-Megantic didn't act perfectly the night of the tragedy, but he acted reasonably, his lawyer said in his closing arguments Monday.

Lawyer Charles Shearson told the 14 jurors he admits Tom Harding didn't conduct a proper brake test on the train after he parked the oil-laden convoy outside the small town the night of July 5, 2013.

But Harding wasn't acting outside normal company procedures, Shearson suggested.

Story continues below advertisement

He added that Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway, which owned the train and the tracks, didn't inform Harding of the latent risks of parking a train in such a location and that his deviation from the rules that night was not a criminal act.

"We can't criminalize every departure from a rule," Shearson said. "Although Harding's conduct was not perfect, it was reasonable. When you look at the entirety of the evidence you have the image of a very reliable man."

The Crown has argued Harding neither applied the required number of brakes on the train nor tested the system properly to ensure the brakes were working before he left for the night.

Early the following morning, the train carrying crude oil began moving on its own, headed down to Lac-Megantic, derailed and exploded, killing the 47 and destroying part of the downtown core.

Harding and his two former colleagues, Richard Labrie and Jean Demaitre, have all pleaded not guilty to one count of criminal negligence causing the death of 47 people.

Labrie was the traffic controller and Demaitre the manager of train operations.

Shearson told jurors the evidence presented during the trial showed the proper number of brakes that needed to be applied to the train was discovered only after the tragedy.

Story continues below advertisement

He added Harding left the locomotive running, applied air brakes and a certain number of handbrakes.

"The train wasn't going anywhere," Shearson said.

Evidence at the trial showed the train began moving only after a fire broke out on the locomotive and after the firefighters called to the blaze shut the engine off.

The shutdown of the engine caused a loss of air, compromising the brake system, Shearson said.

Moreover, he said in order to find Harding guilty, jurors need to believe he showed a "marked and substantial departure from the norm – (the accused's) mindset has to be so careless it shows a wanton disregard for the lives and safety of others."

Shearson replayed a recording heard earlier during the trial of a conversation between Harding and another railway employee the night of the derailment, during which the accused is told the locomotive caught fire after he had left for the night.

Story continues below advertisement

Harding is heard asking whether someone was heading to the fire site and if he needed to return to help out.

He is told the situation was under control and to go back to bed.

"The evidence of (Harding's) state of mind that night shows he was conscientious and not reckless," Shearson said.

Shearson is to finish his arguments Tuesday and Quebec Superior Court Justice Gaetan Dumas is expected to give his instructions to the jury Wednesday.

The Crown delivered its closing arguments last week, as did lawyers representing Labrie and Demaitre.

Report an error
Comments are closed

We have closed comments on this story for legal reasons or for abuse. For more information on our commenting policies and how our community-based moderation works, please read our Community Guidelines and our Terms and Conditions.

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.