Employee sues CSX over run-in with goose

[Convicted One]

Sounds to me like this goose might be one of those railfans that don't take orders to leave the property lightly.

[vsmith]

A-FLAC !!!!

[Murphy Siding]

Does anyone else find it extrememly ironic that Afflack, the company that gives you money when your hurt and have to miss work, is a goose?

Um.......it's a duck.

[coborn35]

Does anyone else find it extrememly ironic that Afflack, the company that gives you money when your hurt and have to miss work, is a goose?

[MichaelSol]

  Nobody can really speculate whats taken so long, because every case is different.

But, speculate you did ... and that, in your opinion, it "took too long".

Law, medicine, engineering, accounting, many of life's endeavors are successfully pursued by acquiring knowledge first .... then offering opinions which have a credibility different from those opinions that arise spontaneously and sometimes too strongly during the sunrise of life, unencumbered by experience and judgment.

 

 

 

 

[arkansasrailfan]

In contrast to the teen debate, I'm a teen and I say that the employee made the great big error of waiting 2 years to do anything about, but 1-did he file a injury report? 2-did he agitate the goose? 3-or did he think, "oh well" told someone about it and someone said,"sueCSX then!" I can think of many posibilties about this.

Try this possibility. Many injuries, particularly skeleto-spinal injuries such as the type suffered in a serious fall don't just instantly "heal up". Often the recovery period to a "point of maximum healing" can take many months. The "point of maximum healing" defines the damages. If someone is going to be just fine 16 months after an injury, you have 16 months worth of injury to focus on. If the recovery and rehabilitation is slow and arduous, it may to 2-3 years of surgeries and/or physical therapy to determine the "point of maximum healing." And for some people, the injury is, ultimately, permanent to some degree. There is no point in filing a lawsuit for a patient/client until the damages can be determined -- up to and until the statute of limitations begins to run, and then the attorney files the suit even though damages may not even then yet be ascertainable; however, at that point, the simple passage of time itself often suggests the level of difficulty of the recovery.

The "delay" is in fact no such thing, but rather typically a reasoned and practical judgment to file at a given point in time for both medical and legal reasons.

"I'm a teen and I say that the employee made the great big error of waiting two years ...." does, unfortunately but perhaps predictably, underscore a lack of experience and a tendency to rush to judgment on people and circumstances you know little about. Most teenagers grow out of it, some don't.

 

I do know that in juries take quite a while, but how could being attacked by a goose make you take 2 years to heal, and why would this guy take 2 years to report it. If the guy slamed his head against a rail, or run into something, yes, it would be resonable. This goose, in order to injure him to make a 2 year healing, the goose would have to be extremly strong and weigh a lot. This man may have as a only alternative is to sue CSX. For any railroad, or company, removing wildlife or anything that is not immediatly affecting that establishments operations is way down on the prioty list. An imediate priorty would be transits, living things getting in equipment, etc. I have read plenty of articles where people sue somone for an incident that happen a reletivly long time ago, like 2 or 3 or 25 years. It could be that they just wake up one day and decide to sue. I have yet to see the suer say why they suddenly decided to sue. Nobody can really speculate whats taken so long, because every case is different.

[snagletooth]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ooHKC_F7ics

 

 

Synchronized dancing, I gotta remember to do that one!

[MichaelSol]

In contrast to the teen debate, I'm a teen and I say that the employee made the great big error of waiting 2 years to do anything about, but 1-did he file a injury report? 2-did he agitate the goose? 3-or did he think, "oh well" told someone about it and someone said,"sueCSX then!" I can think of many posibilties about this.

Try this possibility. Many injuries, particularly skeleto-spinal injuries such as the type suffered in a serious fall don't just instantly "heal up". Often the recovery period to a "point of maximum healing" can take many months. The "point of maximum healing" defines the damages. If someone is going to be just fine 16 months after an injury, you have 16 months worth of injury to focus on. If the recovery and rehabilitation is slow and arduous, it may to 2-3 years of surgeries and/or physical therapy to determine the "point of maximum healing." And for some people, the injury is, ultimately, permanent to some degree. There is no point in filing a lawsuit for a patient/client until the damages can be determined -- up to and until the statute of limitations begins to run, and then the attorney files the suit even though damages may not even then yet be ascertainable; however, at that point, the simple passage of time itself often suggests the level of difficulty of the recovery.

The "delay" is in fact no such thing, but rather typically a reasoned and practical judgment to file at a given point in time for both medical and legal reasons.

"I'm a teen and I say that the employee made the great big error of waiting two years ...." does, unfortunately but perhaps predictably, underscore a lack of experience and a tendency to rush to judgment on people and circumstances you know little about. Most teenagers grow out of it, some don't.

 

[arkansasrailfan]

In contrast to the teen debate, I'm a teen and I say that the employee made the great big error of waiting 2 years to do anything about, but 1-did he file a injury report? 2-did he agitate the goose? 3-or did he think, "oh well" told someone about it and someone said,"sueCSX then!"
I can think of many posibilties about this. I tell you when I was 4, a goose attacked me, and all these years later, I think it's funny(I went wahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!-exact quote)
all those goose attack videos show stupid acting like wildlife all sedatelife(hinthint-that's why wildlife is called WILDlife peope!)
And falling on the hard coffee table, it is not funny. When you're teeth are smashed up, you're bleeding from you're mouth, and screaming at the top of your lungs(think air raid siren, at age 4 again*groan*)
another word of advice, never let tots out of your view, for they will do something horrible)
Now both of situations once I think about it are funny, my 2nd cousin, whos 3, almost strangled himself on the pull cord on blinds, which his father saved him just in time. It's not the fault of his parents, but rather how easy it is for a tot to kill/injure himself in a moment when not watched.

[Anonymous]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ooHKC_F7ics

 

 

[solzrules]

When Geese ATTACK!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yd6Tp-dTisw

 

It just goes to show how stupid people are when they get around wildlife.  (Not saying the CSX guys was dumb - you can walk into a situation without realizing it.)  Some people figure that all wildlife animals are basically domesticated cats-they need to be pet and kissed.  If you want to see something REALLY funny, watch Grizzly Man - the documentary about Timothy Treadwell.  When he wasn't naming 1000lbs grizzly bears Mr. Chocolate, he was sticking his hands in bear poop and talking about how great it was.  Not suprisingly, he was eaten by a bear.  Wild animals are best viewed at a distance.  Not only are you keeping yourself safe, you are keeping the animal safe.   

[vsmith]

When Geese ATTACK!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yd6Tp-dTisw

 

[edblysard]

Bet Chuck Norris could do it!

[zardoz]

[quote user="TomDiehl

The head of a full grown goose can easily be at least waist high on a full grown man, so I'd like to know if he's really flexible enought to kick that high, and accurate enough with a kick when the goose is running at you. /quote]

Espescially since he was likely on ballast, wearing sturdy work clothes and heavy boots, carrying a radio or other equipment--hardly conducive to doing a spinning roundhouse back-kick.

[zardoz]

  All joking aside i think even if the Carrier were to side with the employee they would not want to settle because of other potential suits. On the other hand i have known trainmen who were not called back to work when they should have been and were passed over. The carrier called back junior employees and my friend time slipped and it still took 8 months to get his back pay. So i guess it depends on the company.

The few times I got hurt on the CNW, they offered me my lost wages plus a little 'extra'.  Didn't have to go to court, fight any battle, have a hissy fit, or anything.  I merely reported the injury, the company fixed the problem that caused the injury, and paid me my settlement. Done, with no further ramifications or issues.

[sanvtoman]

  All joking aside i think even if the Carrier were to side with the employee they would not want to settle because of other potential suits. On the other hand i have known trainmen who were not called back to work when they should have been and were passed over. The carrier called back junior employees and my friend time slipped and it still took 8 months to get his back pay. So i guess it depends on the company.

[TomDiehl]

Here is a question, what kind of a wuss needs to sue over a goose attack and against his employer who was not at fault in this case?  I can't get over how touched people are at times and will do all kinds of bull just to get media attention or free money.  Personally I hope CSX fires the twit for being an obvious scam artist and trying to insult their intelligence.

On a new thought related to this, if I was in his place, I would have kicked the stupid bird with my steel toed boots.  It's tresspassing on railroad property and surely would be so if it had an owner. Plus, you are defending yourself; not so much like defending yourself from a bear attack but it is still an animal that has a tendency to attack folk for no particular reason and worthy of a boot to the head. 

As much as it may shock some people on this forum, I have to agree with Michael on this one. This poster obviously doesn't realize that a goose is hardly the cute little farm animal he's seen in the cartoons. The head of a full grown goose can easily be at least waist high on a full grown man, so I'd like to know if he's really flexible enought to kick that high, and accurate enough with a kick when the goose is running at you. If you kick it lower, you're going to get bit, and I have first hand experience with domestic geese, so I'd venture to guess that wild geese are as bad or worse.

[Anonymous]

I'm with the goose on this one...........

 

 

 

Score is now Goose 2, Phoam goose eggs.

You might say the phoamers got goosed on this deal!

Holy Jaap Van Dorp Batman!!!!!!!!!

 

 

[Anonymous]

Here is a question, what kind of a wuss needs to sue over a goose attack and against his employer who was not at fault in this case?  I can't get over how touched people are at times and will do all kinds of bull just to get media attention or free money.  Personally I hope CSX fires the twit for being an obvious scam artist and trying to insult their intelligence.

On a new thought related to this, if I was in his place, I would have kicked the stupid bird with my steel toed boots.  It's tresspassing on railroad property and surely would be so if it had an owner. Plus, you are defending yourself; not so much like defending yourself from a bear attack but it is still an animal that has a tendency to attack folk for no particular reason and worthy of a boot to the head. 

I've been in an injury case situation before. I was dissmissed. Don't ever wish for a man to lose his job, what's wrong with you. Don't talk about what you would have done either, because you don't know what you would have done. Maybe you need to think about how things would be if your job were in jeapordy. Next time give your mouth the same opportunity as your ears.

[RRKen]

I'm with the goose on this one...........

 

 

 

Score is now Goose 2, Phoam goose eggs.

[MichaelSol]

Employees sue the carriers in these instances, not because the carrier does not want compensate the employee for the on duty injury, but because the employee doesn't believe the carrier is compensating the employee at a high enough level.  Lawyers do a very good sales job to employees on how much more money they can squeeze out of the carriers. 

Whoa, Nellie, lots of assumptions here that just aren't true. I have never seen a railroad or insurance carrier yet that just agreed to hand over adequate compensation when the burden of proof has been fairly met. They will, on their best day, offer maybe half of the actual injuries and wage losses, and on their bad days, chump change. And most injured people don't want to go to trial -- that's a fact. It is a policy to not pay adequate compensation upon the theory that will promote claims. A ruthless policy, but the policy nonetheless. Then, as I point out above, the jury sees that, and the RR can't understand why juries keep handing out such large awards. The awards are sent as a "message," but the recipient is deaf.

Lawyers rarely mention how much of percentage of the final award they will take as their compensation.

ABA guidelines, and most state bar associations, require a lawer to have a fee agreement, in writing, with the specific percentage identified, signed by the client before any work can even be performed for the client.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm with the goose on this one...........

 

 

[BaltACD]

I guess CSX failed to repair a hole in the cage that spans every inch of their trackage.

Seriously: kick his case out of court FAST and HARD and then fine him for waisting everybody's time.

Wow,  you are Judge and Jury on this.  Hang him high eh?  For following Federal Law?   So the employee is supposed to eat the costs of an on-duty injury?  Better look up case history before you stick with that comment.

Employees sue the carriers in these instances, not because the carrier does not want compensate the employee for the on duty injury, but because the employee doesn't believe the carrier is compensating the employee at a high enough level.  Lawyers do a very good sales job to employees on how much more money they can squeeze out of the carriers.  Lawyers rarely mention how much of percentage of the final award they will take as their compensation.

[RRKen]

I guess CSX failed to repair a hole in the cage that spans every inch of their trackage.

Seriously: kick his case out of court FAST and HARD and then fine him for waisting everybody's time.

Wow,  you are Judge and Jury on this.  Hang him high eh?  For following Federal Law?   So the employee is supposed to eat the costs of an on-duty injury?  Better look up case history before you stick with that comment.

[RRKen]

I'm not claiming to be tough just someone who wouldn't get bitten by a goose if I could help it and certainly not sue my employer unless maybe my employer owned the goose I guess.  To my knowledge, CSX does not own geese.

Furthur more Mr.Sol, you seem to be talking like a political hack well engaged in rhethoric to sound like you are all that.  It is not a case of a spot of ice, or the rest of your nonsense-its a blasted goose bite not a dog bite a goose and he is sueing the railroad why?

I don't really care one way or the other if you attack me or not but try to at least be intelligent about it and stop flapping your trap like a bleeding-heart liberal. 

Here is the point Sir.  #1, if you get injured while on duty, you must file a report.  Any kind of injury, including a paper cut, skinned knee, or rash.   You have  NO choice unless you want to find another job.   Under GCOR; Rule 1.2.5 through 1.2.7.   #2 Maybe a claims agent will contact you and try to compensate  you.   Chances are, that will not happen, or, what they offer comes no where near lost wages, Medical, and other losses.  #3  Under FELA, you end up filing a lawsuit.   

  That is how, in the real world it works, not, how YOU expect it should work.  Meaning it is Federal Law. 

Under the Federal Employers Liability Act,  there is no schedule of automatic payouts such as with Workman's Compensation.   If the company will not offer compensation, you must prove to a Jury that the Railroad company was "legally negligent", at least in part.  

There is case history where animal control is within a companies ability to manage.  Cases involving rats and  snakes are common.   Although a lawsuit was not filed, a trainman walking a track at dusk was accosted by a turkey eating grain under a car.   He was scratched in the face pretty bad from it.  Trainman compensated, turkeys dispatched.  

From my experience, geese in our yard run around in groups of more than one.  And especially in the Spring, they are fierce guarding their mates.   I have been charged more than once when I intruded their "space".   And when you go after one, others will not hesitate to jump in.   Sit at a pond and watch their behavior one day if you doubt me. 

Prior to offering opinions, use the Internets to look it up for yourself.   I hope your employer fires you for being so uninformed.  After all, what is good for the goose, is good for the phoamer.

[MichaelSol]

I keep having trouble understanding why either labor or management would want to continue with such a "roll the dice" arrangement.

The ostensible benefit to a FELA type system from a railroad perspective is that it makes it difficult to recover for relatively minor injuries, and often weeds out people who just don't want to be engaged in litigation. Too, anything that is complex and time-consuming acts as a filter -- people die, give up, the system itself creates a loss on the basis of a technicality -- although that one sometimes cuts both ways -- sometimes people just don't know what to do and go away.

It takes a pretty substantial case for a lawyer to want to take the financial risk of handling such a case.

The railroad controls the data on that: it may well be that the system discourages enough claims that it still represents an overall cost benefit. I don't know and don't have an opinion one way or the other. But I do know that the railroad "attitude" shows up in the courtroom, and juries generally resent it: they know full well when a case should have been settled, and that the railroad was simply trying to either stall it out or beat the injured party into submission by endless rounds of discovery and agressive and demeaning depositions.

Too, the Trial Lawyers are often the voice of the injured and oppressed, often the only voice with the financial horsepower to lobby effectively on an issue like this. Unfortunately, the Trial Lawyers also have a vested interest in this instance of supporting a system that encourages, rather than discourages, litigation. On the other hand, it only works if they are successful, and if they are that successful, it ought to be the railroads seeking the alternative.

The Unions? Don't know. Maybe this will sound unfair, and maybe it is unfair, but I could never tell whose side they were on.

 

[n012944]

Not a problem

[zugmann]

My apologies no12944, I misread the user names (I have to stop posting after long days at work).. I should have been addressing Junctionfan, not you.

Again, sorry about that.  

 I'll now slowly sulk away from this thread, and hope I won't trip or get chased by a goose in the process..

Stay safe.  

[n012944]

Drop the attitude no12944.  Until you walk the same mile-long train 3 times in my boots, you really should watch how you judge others knowing limited facts.  You started the insult throwing by tossing accusations at the csx employee, and now you can't take it.   

I HAVE walked in those boots, thank you. I CHOSE to move into dispatching, to be home with my daughter every night.  BTW reread my posts, I never accused the CSX employee of anything, just stated my beliefs on the subject.