Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
South Florida Woman Suing FEC For Her Stupidity

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Murphy Siding"][quote user="Bucyrus"].  My point was that the crossing point had become routinely and frequently used, and furthermore, that the railroad may have become aware of that use.  The routine use of the crossing point that had become physically developed as a pathway used in conjunction with a public trail system may have developed in a way that caused users to become habituated and less wary than they would normally be.  And because railroad crews and officials are expected to be vigilant about conditions along the track, they might be expected to have become aware of the routine use of this crossing point.  If so, they ought to conclude that the concentration of illegal crossing activity might pose a higher risk of injury or death to pedestrians than what would exist otherwise along the track.  So the railroad's awareness of the increased danger and their failure to do anything about it (if both are true) may have increased their liability.   [/quote]I agree to your point that nothing is ever black & white, more likely shades of grey.  I'm still not convinced that a railroad's knowledge that people are more likely to do illegal and risky things near the tracks makes them more liable for those people's behavior.  What would you expect the railroad to do about those people's behavior?  And where would you stop?[/quote] I think the point is that it is easier to defend your failure to protect the public from a hazard on your property if you can prove you did not know about the hazard.  I do not know what action that FEC could have taken to protect the public (if this trail crossing had in fact developed and was frequently used) in a way that would have minimized their liability.  No trespassing signs, or signs warning about the imminent danger of moving trains, fencing or barricades at that specific spot, perhaps fencing extended some distance on either side of that spot, or notifying the police and asking them to keep an eye out for pedestrians crossing the tracks, having their own police keep an eye on it, start issuing citations to the pedestrians-any or all of these things would demonstrate diligence to protect the public from hazard inherent in crossing the tracks at that location.I have a trail nearby which is built on the old M&StL main line.  There are deep cuts and high fills where it drops down into the Minnesota River valley.  The fills, about 80 feet high, offer impressive views into the valley.  The park board put up ugly chain link fences on both sides of the trail where it crosses the fills, and it totally destroyed the wild, exhilarating, and lofty feel of crossing the fills.   I asked the manager why they did that.  He told me that park board or county officials touring the area reported vertigo, so they sensed a hazard to bicyclists in case they went off the trail on one of the fills.  I asked him why they used so much fence since it appeared that perhaps 1/3 the amount of fence they used would have sufficed to protect the hazard.  He told me that when you build a fence to protect a hazard, it is advisable to build a really big fence.  He said the fence needs to be extra size beyond what is actually needed to make up for the fact that when you build a fence around your hazard, you are admitting that you know about the hazard, and knowing about the hazard makes your liability higher than if you don't know about it.  So building the fence first increases your liability, and then overbuilding the fence compensates for the increase by reducing your liability.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag