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.
An "expensive model collector"
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
--deleted due the above poster summing it up better than I could--
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.
Here we had a decent thread, Sol gets involved, and here comes the insults.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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".
zugmann wrote: 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.
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.
Not a problem
Dakguy201 wrote: 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.
Junctionfan wrote: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.
sgtbean1 wrote: 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.
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 wrote: sgtbean1 wrote: 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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I'm with the goose on this one...........
BaltACD wrote: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.
BaltACD wrote: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.
Harry_Runyon wrote: I'm with the goose on this one...........
Score is now Goose 2, Phoam goose eggs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.