Perhaps the CSX could allow the crews to carry a nice over under 10 gauge. Just think - the engineer could have one hanging out his side and the conductor could have one on the other side. Man, that'd be the goose killing machine!
Actually, this is a bird that needs to be hunted down. Their numbers are growing exponentially, and without any natural predators in the area they are spreading like wildfire. It is the same situation with deer in these parts. We don't kill enough of them every year so they are becoming a hazard on the roads and some of them are dying of starvation every year because the habitat can't support the population.
Geese can also put some hurting on you. Their wings (I've never tried this) are supposedly strong enough to break your arm, if they hit you right. Not the nicest bird to tangle with. They can also be pretty teritorial, which sound like what the CSX guy walked into. Without delving into the legitimacy of the lawsuit, I find it hard to imagine what CSX was supposed to do to prevent wildlife from being wildlife.
solzrules wrote: Perhaps the CSX could allow the crews to carry a nice over under 10 gauge. Just think - the engineer could have one hanging out his side and the conductor could have one on the other side. Man, that'd be the goose killing machine!
Come in real handy for the morons determined to run grade crossing gates too, I'm sure? That way the road crews wouldn't have to throw their trains into emergency, they could just confirm the kill, and keep on chugging?
PETA better not find out or they will want the railroad shut down until nesting season is over. This guy brings new depth of meaning to getting goosed however.
solzrules wrote: Perhaps the CSX could allow the crews to carry a nice over under 10 gauge. Just think - the engineer could have one hanging out his side and the conductor could have one on the other side. Man, that'd be the goose killing machine!Actually, this is a bird that needs to be hunted down. Their numbers are growing exponentially, and without any natural predators in the area they are spreading like wildfire. It is the same situation with deer in these parts. We don't kill enough of them every year so they are becoming a hazard on the roads and some of them are dying of starvation every year because the habitat can't support the population. Geese can also put some hurting on you. Their wings (I've never tried this) are supposedly strong enough to break your arm, if they hit you right. Not the nicest bird to tangle with. They can also be pretty teritorial, which sound like what the CSX guy walked into. Without delving into the legitimacy of the lawsuit, I find it hard to imagine what CSX was supposed to do to prevent wildlife from being wildlife.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
"As plaintiff performed the required inspection, a goose which was previously known by defendant to have nested in its yard area, suddenly jumped out from under one of the railcars, striking plaintiff, and causing him to fall," the complaint states.
If the employee knew of the existance of the goose, normal prudence would dictate that he take the appropriate defensive measures, which on the surface of the article it appears was not done. Knowing human nature, I would fully expect that the individual might even have tried to antagonize the goose thereby inviting the attack. Case dismissed.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD wrote: "As plaintiff performed the required inspection, a goose which was previously known by defendant to have nested in its yard area, suddenly jumped out from under one of the railcars, striking plaintiff, and causing him to fall," the complaint states.If the employee knew of the existance of the goose, normal prudence would dictate that he take the appropriate defensive measures, which on the surface of the article it appears was not done. Knowing human nature, I would fully expect that the individual might even have tried to antagonize the goose thereby inviting the attack. Case dismissed.
I did not read anything that suggested that the employee "ANTAGONIZED" the goose, as far as I can tell, that is just supposition on your part, which would carry exactly ZERO weight in a courtroom.
Anyone that is laughing about this has never been attacked by one of these nasty buggers which are nothing more than a CUTE APPEARING vermin. I have been chased and attacked by geese, and being an animal lover wanted to avoid hurting them, but a goose can inflict very painful bites. The employee was injured in a fall, that in my own supposition (I WASN"T THERE EITHER) happened while trying to avoid the XXXX vermin. The damages sought only amounted to $75,000 according to the article, that was for medical, time lost and legal costs, which all can add up very quickly, plus loss of enjoyment of life, which knowing how fast the first three can add up was likely a VERY SMALL portion of the total. This person was not trying to score a lottery win doing something that he should not have been such as a trespasser on the ROW being injured when they have no business being there and then going for the million dollar settlement. This appears to be someone hurt on the job (as humorous as the circumstances may seem to some) and doesn't want to lose their home over it.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
All I gotta say is
Boot >> Goose
Maybe the solution would be for the judge to order PETA to settle the goose's problem to everybody's satisfaction. Or for everyone who was injured to individually sue PETA as an organization and the individual nitwits and lawyers who either threatened action or entered into legal action resulting in injunction leading to injury.
I'll pay attention to PETA when I hear that all the bears, sharks, tigers and T-d off geese have joined ATEP (Animals for the Ethical Treatment of People.)
And then there was the case, several years ago, where the local ASPCA chapter took a citizen to court for killing a rat... (The state, New Jersey, had rats defined as, "Noxious pests...")
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Chuck
'round these here parts, the most popular PETA bumper sticker is
I support PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals.
(Another favorite is: Vegitarian...old indian word for "Bad Hunter"
JSGreen wrote: 'round these here parts, the most popular PETA bumper sticker isI support PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals.(Another favorite is: Vegitarian...old indian word for "Bad Hunter"
hah thanks for that laugh. that was great!
Your friendly neighborhood CNW fan.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
If train crews were granted the right to carry, would this injury have been avoidable?
I remember riding a CB&Q branch line mixed back when the earth and I were young. The crew let us tour the cab of their locomotive. Personal equipment therein included a model 1911 Colt .45 cal. pistol, a 20 gauge shotgun and a wrist rocket sling shot.
It was hunting season. The 10 MPH speed limit meant there was no problem retrieving any pheasants, or rabbits, punished for treaspassing on the less than manicured right of way. Rather than make a mess of their work place, all prey was taken home to be cleaned.
No goose would dare have tangled with these guys.
Maybe CSX can borrow one of UPs Rotaries...
Hurt on the job and no Workers Comp. Pay the man, get rid of the geese, and move on.
Dan
hrbdizzle wrote:Riddle me this.If in this instance, it was not a Goose, but a stray dog, perhaps a pack of pitbulls?Still funny? Still has no grounds for a lawsuit?
Funny, no, but as far as I am concered still no grounds for a lawsuit.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 wrote: hrbdizzle wrote:Riddle me this.If in this instance, it was not a Goose, but a stray dog, perhaps a pack of pitbulls?Still funny? Still has no grounds for a lawsuit?Funny, no, but as far as I am concered still no grounds for a lawsuit.
hrbdizzle wrote: n012944 wrote: hrbdizzle wrote:Riddle me this.If in this instance, it was not a Goose, but a stray dog, perhaps a pack of pitbulls?Still funny? Still has no grounds for a lawsuit?Funny, no, but as far as I am concered still no grounds for a lawsuit.So what your saying is that, because I am performing my job on duty, switching out boxcars, performing air tests, and I am attacked and injured at work. I am supposed to pay for all of my medical expenses myself, and forget about my loss of wages while recovering from my injuries?
I've been down this road and was told that negligence has to be proven on the company's part, without it you get a goose egg.
hrbdizzle wrote:Would they really?After an injured employee received a settlement. I would think that they would leave him alone.If he got the crew fired, by getting by a signal. And everyone else in the crew got their job back, after the 6 months off but him. Whammo another lawsuit.I know the goose story sounds funny, it doesBut the article does not go into detail on what injuries he sustained.
I'm curious as to how one would file a lawsuit because everyone else got back except them. Just asking because in my experience what's good for the goose.... naaahh too corny.
Unless you can prove negligence on the companies part, yes. And to play devils advocate here, prove to me that the goose that attacked the employee was the same one that was reported. As for paying for all your medical expenses yourself, one would hope that you have medical insurance, limiting your expenses to a copay.
hrbdizzle wrote:All that has to be proven with negligence, is that the company knew of the goose already, and done nothing about it. A couple of other fellow brakeman, switchman, and their testimonies about the geese, and their existence at the rail yard. Is the rail yard, fenced in? are there holes in the fence?This is the same situation where, here we had a switchman attacked by a couple of bummies. They mugged him, and beat him so bad that he could no longer work at UP.
Being attacked by bums IMHO is far different than being attacked by a WILD animal.
challenger3980 wrote:. The damages sought only amounted to $75,000 according to the article, that was for medical, time lost and legal costs, which all can add up very quickly, plus loss of enjoyment of life, which knowing how fast the first three can add up was likely a VERY SMALL portion of the total.
From the article:
"Richards seeks damages in excess of $75,000 as well as costs and other relief."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.