> Thanks for the clarification on that. The
> cars were to be scrapped, so I understood
> the initial requirement to remove the GATX
> markings, but the legal folks were agreeable
> under the circumstances of preservation.
> Their principal concern was the liability
> issue.
> Stephen

What liability issue? Please Explain.



todengine@woh.rr.com

> What liability issue? Please Explain.

In broad terms, I assume the company is worried that if the car was involved in any kind of accident while bearing their reporting marks, they might be named in any ensuing lawsuit. Remember, GATX is an operating equiptment company--if they sell a car to another operator they want their marks off of it immediately. I'm sure their legal department's default assumption is that selling/giving it to a museum works the same way--not their property any longer, so not their mark.

> In broad terms, I assume the company is
> worried that if the car was involved in any
> kind of accident while bearing their
> reporting marks, they might be named in any
> ensuing lawsuit. Remember, GATX is an
> operating equiptment company--if they sell a
> car to another operator they want their
> marks off of it immediately. I'm sure their
> legal department's default assumption is
> that selling/giving it to a museum works the
> same way--not their property any longer, so
> not their mark.

This is correct, but it went even further than that. We were attempting to acquire a car to swap to a shortline for two old(er) (1920s or so vintage riveted) cars to preserve. All was well until legal entered and pulled the car we intended to swap. If the issue was simply a matter of reporting marks, my argument that the shortline would put their marks on the car should have sufficed. However, their position was that the potential of use was the reason. This is rather complicated and I cannot offer any more details, but rather obviously there was more of an issue then reporting marks.
Stephen


syfrettinc@bellsouth.net