Junctionfan wrote: 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.
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.
I am at least intelligent enough to have read the articles and see that the injuries were suffered from the resulting fall, not a "goose bite" even though that may have been part of it and in my experience, sufficient all by itself. An angry adult goose is in a class all by itself. However, I am experienced enough to know that people can, in fact, also get badly injured from a bad fall, depending on their age, general physical condition, pre-existing conditions, and the circumstances of the fall; and the fall was specifically mentioned. I am educated enough to know that for railroad employees in particular, they have to walk their case through a system of somewhat greater complexity than other employees injured on the job.
And I am just old enough and cynical enough to know that there are some folks out there who just can't resist the opportunity to offer an opinion on something they really don't seem to know too much about.
And for anyone injured on the job, in the service of their Company and doing its work, I do think they deserve, at a minimum, the absolute benefit of the doubt. I guess that makes me a "bleeding-heart liberal".
In industrial America (other than railroads) I think it is fair to say that worker's comp systems were introduced in the early 20th century and nearly universal by 1940. They were the result of society attempting to make provision for injured workers without going through the sometimes long and sometimes complex legal tort system to determine precisely who was at fault and to what degree. The unions were one of the major advocates for such a system.
Let's not get into a discussion of how well or badly the system works to achieve that end. Regardless, I think most people would agree that it is at least an improvement on the social condition that existed pre-comp.
Michael seems to be saying that this is an instance in which the railroads have succeeded over a period of 100 years in avoiding inclusion in such a system. Further, that such an exemption at least occasionally comes back to bite them both in legal fees and exposure to a legal jusristiction known to be plaintiff-friendly and generous.
I keep having trouble understanding why either labor or management would want to continue with such a "roll the dice" arrangement.
You do realize there are companies that employ guard geese?
They are nasty and big birds. http://www.fao.org/docrep/V6200T/v6200T0n.htm You get one of them to take a chunk out of your leg, I can guarantee you will not be able to work for awhile. And with no workman's comp - you are forced to sue. A messed up system for sure, but it is the system.
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
MichaelSol wrote: Junctionfan wrote: 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. Well, threatening to be able to stand up to a goose is quite a claim. Maybe it makes you feel better about something. Maybe you're just a tough guy.Someday, when you grow up, you will realize that the world is not simplistic, that people sometimes do suffer profound injuries, and that even small things, an unexpected spot of ice on a sidewalk or a step, a moment's distraction by a crying baby at a rail crossing, missing a stop sign because someone forgot to trim their hedge, can change a life forever. Maybe these things are a kind of joke to you, and everybody is a scam artist.The idea that you feel compelled to judge another person, at a considerable distance, in all probability without knowing all the facts of the case, and actually wish that the man would be fired and ruin his career, I think speaks worlds about you, without offering anything useful to this conversation.
Junctionfan wrote: 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.
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.
Well, threatening to be able to stand up to a goose is quite a claim. Maybe it makes you feel better about something. Maybe you're just a tough guy.
Someday, when you grow up, you will realize that the world is not simplistic, that people sometimes do suffer profound injuries, and that even small things, an unexpected spot of ice on a sidewalk or a step, a moment's distraction by a crying baby at a rail crossing, missing a stop sign because someone forgot to trim their hedge, can change a life forever. Maybe these things are a kind of joke to you, and everybody is a scam artist.
The idea that you feel compelled to judge another person, at a considerable distance, in all probability without knowing all the facts of the case, and actually wish that the man would be fired and ruin his career, I think speaks worlds about you, without offering anything useful to this conversation.
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?
It is similar to saying: "that stupid railroader fell while walking - how can U B so stoopid to fall while walking?"
It is easy to get injured on the job out here. You could be tying down a handbrake and have a goose run up and bite your leg. Maybe you do kick him and another one comes up. They are nasty birds. You can slip off a wet, coal-dust covered grabiron. Of course new managers and immature railfans both share the same problem: neither one of them has DONE this job at all. They haven't had to walk on a ballast non-existant shoulder, grabbing onto the side of a car to keep from sliding down 30 feet when the few stones give way.
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.
PS>> whn I say "railfan" I do not mean all railfans. I know 99% of railfans know what we deal with and understand how bad we have it at times. I refer to the select few that think we are just a bunch of whiners and the company is always right - screw the employee.
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
n012944 wrote: zugmann wrote: Come on now, Junctionfan started the crap when he called the injured party a "wuss" and hoped CSX would fire the "twit". He speaks like the ignorant railfan that hasn't read the post. Knock it off n012944. IMHO the insults should have been left out of that post too. However insulting a poster often sends a thread down the road of turning into a flame war.
zugmann wrote: Come on now, Junctionfan started the crap when he called the injured party a "wuss" and hoped CSX would fire the "twit". He speaks like the ignorant railfan that hasn't read the post. Knock it off n012944.
Come on now,
Junctionfan started the crap when he called the injured party a "wuss" and hoped CSX would fire the "twit". He speaks like the ignorant railfan that hasn't read the post.
Knock it off n012944.
IMHO the insults should have been left out of that post too. However insulting a poster often sends a thread down the road of turning into a flame war.
It is an interesting opinion considering how many times you have specifically been the culprit on that point on these forums.
In this instance, I referred to "growing up" because the post struck me as something a basic teenager might say. As the Time Magazine article of a couple of years ago pointed out, that's a tough time in life, when the brain is hormone driven, often confrontational, judgmental, not good at processing external information, mercurial in mood, and frequently asocial as well as anti-social.
I assume the poster, from the nature of the remarks, is a young railfan because from his remarks he fits the bill pretty well. If he isn't well oops, but the opinion expressed in any event is unfortunately all too typical of people 1) unsympathetic in general with injured people who by implication aren't "tough" enough, 2) unfamiliar with the legal system, and 3) trying to show how tough they are compared to everybody else.
It is in the nature of railroading that this kind of litigation has to walk through its paces to determine the proper result. People do get injured on the job, and a goose-attack is about the same order of magnitude as slipping off the bottom step getting down off the engine -- and there "can" be substantial injury from that.
More to the point, these repeating threads regarding injured and killed people, which are a magnet for people like the poster to get aboard and pronounce how stupid, moronic, and idiotic people are, how dumb and irresponsbile their parents must be, and how greedy people are when they have been hurt, is a recurring theme so obnoxious and offensive I cannot believe this forum has no policy on it.
The commenters in general don't know enough, haven't experienced enough, and in any case almost never know the full facts of a case because they are inevitably presented through a filter necessarily compromising of the information -- a brief news item by an inexperienced or hurried reporter, an editorial somewhere, or a comment on a forum by a railfan who doesn't have any actual training or experience in medicine, law, or railroading and yet manages somehow to have absolute opinions about all three at the same time, all in the same post.
This one managed to add the details of how he thought he might be able to take out a goose, which I guess is some kind of icing on the cake.
The underlying story is somewhat amusing because we carry stereotypes about Geese and this one appealed to the stereotype. Beyond that, condemning an employee for being injured on the job, being forced to go through an onerous and semi-ridiculous legal process imposed by the rail industry itself through Congressional lobbying, and then arguing he should be fired for his injury is just a little too much opinion and not enough mature judgment exercised on the circumstances.
An "expensive model collector"
Dakguy201 wrote: I remain puzzzled over the exemption from worker's compensation. I know how that occured in the historical sense, but it makes little sense to me that railway workers remain uncovered in a system that has become nearly universal elsewhere. Could someone explain why this situation persists? In particular, why the unions do not scream/cry/beg/bribe their Congresscritters at every opportunity on this isssue?
I remain puzzzled over the exemption from worker's compensation. I know how that occured in the historical sense, but it makes little sense to me that railway workers remain uncovered in a system that has become nearly universal elsewhere.
Could someone explain why this situation persists? In particular, why the unions do not scream/cry/beg/bribe their Congresscritters at every opportunity on this isssue?
Milwaukee Road's Albert Earling brought the concept of Worker Compensation to the rail industry under circumstances that would have protected the Milwaukee against any judgment, but for which he believed that the railroad had a "moral obligation" to protect workers and their families against injuries incurred while in the service of the company, even if the company was not specifically at fault.
It was a European concept at the time, that injuries were a part of "doing business" for both the worker and the company, and the company should not accept the benefits of the worker taking that risk, without also accepting the moral obligation of sharing the burden of that risk. Trainman steps off the engine and twists his ankle. Company's fault? It happens all the time irregardless of employment, but that is also the underlying premise -- it is an inherent risk for which the company accepts a benefit -- the worker coming to work, taking the risk, and producing revenue for the company.
Well, James J. Hill and others were just appalled at Earling, but the Country was just moving into the Progressive Era, and the tide in favor of protecting workers was too strong. However, they did get their way in the guise of protecting a regulated industry, by restricting the scope of such claims and providing both less coverage and a more burdensome level of proof for railroad workers than for workers in general.
As usual, I happen to think it backfired on the railroads. I was sitting in a settlement conference Monday with one of BN's attorneys, an old friend of mine, and we happened to be discussing FELA cases. He was remarking about how many Union Pacific FELA cases get filed in Helena, Montana, from Nebraska, Colorado, Oregon, all over the place. Of course, these are filed by Plaintiff's Counsel, seeking a court system that operates relatively quickly to protect their injured clients, but for other reasons as well. He remarked that the average case settles or gets a jury verdict between $350,000 and $450,000. This is far in excess of typical Worker Compensation claims, and yet in a perverse way, it represents the just deserts for an industry that always seems to want an exception from the way everyone else has to do business -- and then kicks and screams when it backfires on them.
Here we had a decent thread, Sol gets involved, and here comes the insults.
--deleted due the above poster summing it up better than I could--
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.
n012944 wrote: While in some cases I agree with you, in THIS case I see red flags. Why was there almost a two year span between the attack and the lawsuit? It just sounds fishy too me
While in some cases I agree with you, in THIS case I see red flags. Why was there almost a two year span between the attack and the lawsuit? It just sounds fishy too me
Nothing fishy about it. That's a typical time frame for the statute of limitations; often filed during substantive negotiations simply as a precaution to keep the statute from running. As has been pointed out, railroad workers do not enjoy the same protections as workers under State Worker Compensation Laws. Under FELA, coverage for injuries received on the job is not automatic as it is for most workers -- for railroad workers there must be "some" level of negligence by the RR. That level of negligence is not the conventional level of negligence found in typical civil injury actions, and is perhaps the most minimal standard found in Anglo-Saxon law. However, because of the law, an injured railroad employee must typically file a suit to obtain the protection that Congress intended -- filing a suit that would be absolutely unnecessary to any other worker covered by other worker protection laws.
Given the time frame involved, it is suggestive that the railroad has already conceded liability, and they have been arguing damages and perhaps were even close to agreeing on them, but the statute was close to running out. In that instance a good attorney would file the action, and the railroad attorneys would understand exactly why even as they may be finalizing a settlement.
I can understand your thinking and I feel for you guys out there. Being a dispatcher, I have very little chance of getting hurt at work, but I know that is not the case out in the field.
hrbdizzle wrote:I only jumped on his defense because I thought that this was a recent incident, and after reading some of the responses on this thread they made me somewhat frustrated. This site here is about trains, and the majority, here are fail fans, and model railroad fans. That know a great deal of history about RR, but some have never worked in the industry, and do not know what we have to do when we are injured.
While in some cases I agree with you, in THIS case I see red flags. Why was there almost a two year span between the attack and the lawsuit? It just sounds fishy too me.
hrbdizzle wrote:True that this case, needs more information as to what injuries he received. But like I said, If im performing an air test, and I am being chased by a goose, dog, whatever. Im not going to sit and take it, im going to remove my self from the situation. And while running away, I blow out my ACL, on my knee. Sure my healthcare is going to pay for it 100%, but the 2-3 months I am recovering, I fall behind on my mortage, my vehicle gets repossesed. When this happens to police officers, firefighters, they are covered under Workmans Comp, and would not have to worry about loss wages.
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."
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.
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?
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: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.
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: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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.