Just because someone is a judge doesn't automatically mean that they have one ounce of 'common' sense. And juries are usually made up of people not smart enough to figure out how to get out of jury duty.
From the article: "Jurors determined Norfolk Southern and Amtrak could have prevented the accident by placing warning signs alerting people to the electrified catenary wires, which power locomotives, Roda said." I wonder how close the signs would have to be to each other for these moron jurors to feel that "adequate protection" has been provided. And of course this assumes that the potential victim can read whichever language the sign is written.
But what would you expect from a "justce" system that would have a homeowner responsible for injuries suffered by someone burglarizing their house?
So there you have it. A sad day, indeed. I imagine Lady Justice is spinning in her grave.
Quote "The young men's attorney, Joseph F. Roda, of Lancaster, explained after the verdict that the case wasn't about the teenagers' admitted trespassing, but was about the railroad knowing there was a hidden high voltage hazard on the property."
So the railroad had something on THEIR private property that could be dangerous to a non employee trespasser, that the teens admitted to tresspassing on???? What is wrong with this case.
Rustyrex wrote: Quote "The young men's attorney, Joseph F. Roda, of Lancaster, explained after the verdict that the case wasn't about the teenagers' admitted trespassing, but was about the railroad knowing there was a hidden high voltage hazard on the property."So the railroad had something on THEIR private property that could be dangerous to a non employee trespasser, that the teens admitted to tresspassing on???? What is wrong with this case.
Are the power lines invisable?
An "expensive model collector"
i wounder if the judge would feel differntly if someone was tresspassing on his propory and got hurt and then they sued him for a 24 million dollor judgment....
csx engineer
TPWRY wrote:this is why i say the US court system is SCREWED UP c'mon the teenagers were at fault so you penalize the INNOCENT PARTY
Those kids don't deserve a nickel. Had they not committed a crime (trespassing) then these injuries wouldn't have happened. That judge should be disbarred. Thanks for spitting on the face of the country.
Dan
oh for the love of....
this is no different than idiotic motorists suing the railroad when a train smashes their car at a crossing because they tried to beat it.
both events can seriously injure or even kill you. and it's always YOUR FAULT!
What does this judge expect amtrak or NS to do? line the whole freaking wire with warning signs?!?
Your friendly neighborhood CNW fan.
It's possible the justice system shorted on all of that jiuce flowing to the trespassers.
They got fried so be it. They should not get a penny, instead should be billed for it all.
trainfan1221 wrote:Lets hope a different court turns the tables on this one, and investigates how such a stupid decision could have been made.
This is my take on this case. It's five years old already and not a penny has been paid. These trespassers won't see any money either, unless and until a superior court agrees. That may be another five years and it may be never.
Many a big money case has been overturned on appeal on the basis of assumption of risk. So stay cool.
So, did anybody read past the first two paragraphs of the story?
Now, I'm not defending the two yutzes by any means. Personally, I think you do something like this, and you deserve to spend the rest of your life partially disabled with burns over 75% of your body. That should give you a lot of time to reflect upon your own lack of common sense and judgement (although 17 year olds are NOT reknowned for either).
However, how such a thing could have happened -- the verdict, that is, not the incident -- is really rather obvious.
Consider (and I have not seen or read the decision):
1) While the average non-railfan does know that trains on some lines are powered by electricity, they don't generally know how much. An informal survey of my wife and 12 year old came up with 1000 volts and 300 volts, respectively.
2) The average non-railfan may not actually be aware of whether a line is active or not, and whether any catenaries are live, especially if he doesn't live in the area.
3) In the judges words, "The defendants [Amtrak and Norfolk Southern] really presented no evidence."
4) 'During the trial, Stengel wrote, the railroad companies' attorneys "demeaned" the two young men "for their lack of intelligence, judgment and common sense in choosing to climb to the top of the boxcar." ' Good idea, that! I'm sure that didn't **** off anyone on the jury.
5) "The verdict was against the great weight of the defendants' [the railroads'] bluster," Stengel wrote. "It was not against the great weight of the evidence." Right. You have a 17 year old burned and disabled plaintiff sitting in the courtroom. That's already a huge sympathy vote from any juror who has children, or even knows people who do.
So, although I've only seen the judge's words and the reporters version of events, it sounds to me like the railroads' legal team handled the case badly, probably proceeding from the assumption that everyone would think that "the stupid shall be punished" and that he / they didn't have to work too hard. If I were the president of Norfolk Southern, my legal team would be looking for work today.
Unfortunately, an appeal based on the defendants not liking the verdict is unlikely. They would have to show that the verdict violated some precedent or that due process was not followed. Well, we can hope that the appelate court will hear the case, and that the defendants show up with competent representation.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
these weren't 8 yr old kids. They were 17. I'm sorry, but when I was 17, I didn't climb on stuff right under wires.
Just more loss of personal responsibility.
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
Im pretty firm in my conviction that they were on top of a railcar, unfortunately for them there was wire up there. And they fried for it.
I cannot stand the thought of the railroad being slapped on the wrist and forced to hand over 24 million for nothing.
I say this.... put those two to work in thier local area to present school presentations to grade 6 and under as living examples of the dangers of trespassing onto railroad property.
Have them do one per week, per school.
That way they can work for the railroad in a positive manner and hopefully save it again from another idiot climbing up onto those railcars and getting fried again.
Forget the 24 clams, hand them what they need to get around, a minivan, wheel chair etc... and reasonable consideration for thier disabilities. Then send them out to thier new livelihood working for the railroad.
who knows? they might actually get good at it and go on to productive lives.
By the way, crank up the juice on those wires so they crackle and hum with a potential threat of death as to stike fear into hearts of other little boys.
The one guy that was zapped was in the U.S. Army.. so he wasn't hurt that bad (or that permanently).
I don't think they should turn up the juice int he wires... that would toast the toasters...
zugmann wrote: these weren't 8 yr old kids. They were 17. I'm sorry, but when I was 17, I didn't climb on stuff right under wires. Just more loss of personal responsibility.
Since when do 17 year olds exhibit good judgement and common sense?
When I was 17, I didn't climb on stuff right under wires.... but that's probably because I didn't live near any.
I did, however, drink to the point where I could barely stand (yes, at 17), then get in my parents car and speed to the next party. That's INFINITELY dumber than than anything they did.
Who is responsible for the upbringing of these youth? Teaching them right from wrong? If they're too old to hold that party responsible then they (the "kids") should be held responsible. Unless the RR CO. invited/told them to climb on the cars, the kids are the ones who screwed up.
I support holding the driver of the car responsible unless it's a minor and then you can bring the parents into the equation.
CTValleyRR wrote: 5) "The verdict was against the great weight of the defendants' [the railroads'] bluster," Stengel wrote. "It was not against the great weight of the evidence." Right.
5) "The verdict was against the great weight of the defendants' [the railroads'] bluster," Stengel wrote. "It was not against the great weight of the evidence." Right.
I'm no legal beagle, but when I read that statement from the judge (supposedly) presiding over the case, I about fell out of my chair. Isn't it the job of the judge to make sure the jury considers the evidence and not emotions??? That comment alone should make good grist in an appeal.
Would this case have made it to trial if they had climbed a power pole in an industrial park?
CLICK HERE FOR THE CSX DIXIE LINE BLOG
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Rustyrex wrote: Quote "The young men's attorney, Joseph F. Roda, of Lancaster, explained after the verdict that the case wasn't about the teenagers' admitted trespassing, but was about the railroad knowing there was a hidden high voltage hazard on the property."
Yea, right, the railroad didn't know there was a hidden high voltage hazard on the property....
greetings,
Marc Immeker
marcimmeker wrote: Rustyrex wrote: Quote "The young men's attorney, Joseph F. Roda, of Lancaster, explained after the verdict that the case wasn't about the teenagers' admitted trespassing, but was about the railroad knowing there was a hidden high voltage hazard on the property."Yea, right, the railroad didn't know there was a hidden high voltage hazard on the property....greetings,Marc Immeker
And your point is...........?
zugmann wrote:So if you were driving drunk and crashed into a utility pole - would you support suing the utility company for having the audacity to place that pole there??
It may seem like anyone who trespasses deservers whatever they get, but it is not that simple. If it were, nobody would have to worry about liability hazards on their property.
And people do indeed get sued for placing solid obstacles on their own private property that were subsequently struck by drunk drivers. There are laws in some states where authorities can enter your private property and remove such obstacles or roadway departure hazards as they are called.
HIDDEN? last time I saw a high voltage line, it didnt seem to hidden to me. To put up danger high voltage signs everywhere is like the caution sign on a lawn mower to not put your foot under the lawn mower deck. I've done stupid things in my life, but I was always punished for them, maybe I should sue my parents for not giving me toys when I was bad.
rrnut282 wrote:Would this case have made it to trial if they had climbed a power pole in an industrial park?
Probably
Boy Falls through KFC Roof
Basically the evidence that was presented was that the company did not exhaust all efforts to make the roof inaccessable. From what I remember, the boy jumped to the permantly affixed ladder from a dumpster and that the ladder was accessible (no cage around the bottom) and no "No trespassing" signs
The 13-year-old was playing hide and seek with some friends at a Halifax-area KFC restaurant in October 1997. He climbed up onto the roof of the loading dock and fell through onto a concrete surface below. He suffered permanent brain injuries, leaving him with unpredictable, uncontrollable behaviour that made it impossible for his family to care for him.
Mediators for the parties agreed on an amount of $4,055,153 for total damages. In November 2004, seven years after the accident, the parties obtained court consent to the $1.2-million all-inclusive settlement amount. The court record indicates that the award will be further reduced
After seeing all of this being played out, I feel the need to respond. I'm from the Lancaster, PA area where this little act of crappiness played out. The region that is slightly known for the Amish, New Holland Farm Equipment, and the Strasburg Railroad is now able to present to you the local idiot(s). We apologize to Amtrak, NS, and the viewing public for the recent actions of the area few who seem to be a little vacant up top. That is all.
Bucyrus wrote: zugmann wrote:So if you were driving drunk and crashed into a utility pole - would you support suing the utility company for having the audacity to place that pole there??It may seem like anyone who trespasses deservers whatever they get, but it is not that simple. If it were, nobody would have to worry about liability hazards on their property.
And that is the point that just about every "legal beagle" on this thread missed. We operate under a system of laws, not "justice." Fortunately, our Founding Fathers observed that "justice," which generally represents itself as "an eye for an eye," was a poor standard for a modern society, and opted for laws instead. "Justice" is, in fact, an arbitrary solution to a perceived injustice, not a measure of how people govern themselves in a social contract government.
That definition suggests, from the start, many unqualified opinions that arise from people not knowing what they are talking about.
A pretty standard discussion from an Illinois bar association states this:
"In determining whether a duty is owed, the court will examine the parties' relationship. The type of plaintiff-entrant on the defendant-landowner's property will impact the decision as to whether or not a duty exists. Different standards apply depending upon whether an adult plaintiff-entrant is a trespasser or invitee, according to the Premises Liability Act. Generally, a defendant-landowner owes no duty of care to a trespassing adult except to refrain from willfully and wantonly harming him or her, unless the defendant-landowner's premises constitute a "place of danger". With respect to invitees, on the other hand, a defendant-landowner has a general duty to those who lawfully enter upon the defendant-landowner's land to exercise reasonable care for their safety."
A privileged ignorance of the law misunderstands that there were jury instructions specifically to these effects, and that juries are often sincerely following those instructions when they reach a conclusion contrary to the willful and hideous disrespect that Americans often show for their own system of government and the honest application of law by honest people sitting on juries every day across the land. That doesn't mean they are the brightest people, but it does usually mean they are doing their best to follow the law as stated, rather than the mindless reformulations of "what the law ought to be" that pop up, spontaneously and unencumbered by experience, in railfan minds.
To me, it seems just that simple. They got zapped AFTER tresspassing. They didn't just happen to cross the tracks in a legal fashion and stumbled across a live catenary wire! They made a mistake! That's THEIR resposibility. If your an electrician and you don't follow proper procedure to replace an insulator or something like that, you get zapped! And it happened because you made a mistake! Live with it.
I would really like to see them try that where I live. They'd end up paying ME. Next thing you know, they'll come by and take down your house, because some irresponsible dumb drunk would maybe drive into your living room. Where does it end???
sgtbean1 wrote:To me, it seems just that simple. They got zapped AFTER tresspassing. They didn't just happen to cross the tracks in a legal fashion and stumbled across a live catenary wire! They made a mistake! That's THEIR resposibility.
"Simple" doesn't even come close. As a society, we long ago abandoned the death penalty for mistakes. Landowners do have obligations. Trespassers have obligations. The interaction of the two sets of "rights" can appear complex to the untrained eye.
MichaelSol wrote:...As a society, we long ago abandoned the death penalty for mistakes...
As a society, we long ago abandoned the death penalty for mistakes...
Well, but we're not talking about a death penalty. We are talking about the consequences of someones actions, which in this case are clear: he got burned, because he didn't think. So yes, it is that simple. ;-)
It's common sense. And don't say he didn't know there was so much or so much voltage on that line. We all know catenary when we see it, and even if we don't know how much voltage is on the line we don't go about grabbing it. Even if I asume there's no more than 230V or 110V on that line, I can still use my brain to come up with the fact that even that low a voltage is gonna hurt or can even kill me.
Come on, let's hold people responsible for at least some of their actions. They don't deserve a cent, they already got what they bargained for.
MichaelSol wrote: Bucyrus wrote: zugmann wrote:So if you were driving drunk and crashed into a utility pole - would you support suing the utility company for having the audacity to place that pole there??It may seem like anyone who trespasses deservers whatever they get, but it is not that simple. If it were, nobody would have to worry about liability hazards on their property. And that is the point that just about every "legal beagle" on this thread missed. We operate under a system of laws, not "justice." Fortunately, our Founding Fathers observed that "justice," which generally represents itself as "an eye for an eye," was a poor standard for a modern society, and opted for laws instead. "Justice" is, in fact, an arbitrary solution to a perceived injustice, not a measure of how people govern themselves in a social contract government.That definition suggests, from the start, many unqualified opinions that arise from people not knowing what they are talking about.A pretty standard discussion from an Illinois bar association states this: "In determining whether a duty is owed, the court will examine the parties' relationship. The type of plaintiff-entrant on the defendant-landowner's property will impact the decision as to whether or not a duty exists. Different standards apply depending upon whether an adult plaintiff-entrant is a trespasser or invitee, according to the Premises Liability Act. Generally, a defendant-landowner owes no duty of care to a trespassing adult except to refrain from willfully and wantonly harming him or her, unless the defendant-landowner's premises constitute a "place of danger". With respect to invitees, on the other hand, a defendant-landowner has a general duty to those who lawfully enter upon the defendant-landowner's land to exercise reasonable care for their safety."A privileged ignorance of the law misunderstands that there were jury instructions specifically to these effects, and that juries are often sincerely following those instructions when they reach a conclusion contrary to the willful and hideous disrespect that Americans often show for their own system of government and the honest application of law by honest people sitting on juries every day across the land. That doesn't mean they are the brightest people, but it does usually mean they are doing their best to follow the law as stated, rather than the mindless reformulations of "what the law ought to be" that pop up, spontaneously and unencumbered by experience, in railfan minds.
So after reading your post, I am unclear as to whether you agree or disagree with the settlement.
MichaelSol wrote:Landowners do have obligations. Trespassers have obligations. The interaction of the two sets of "rights" can appear complex to the untrained eye.
Landowners do have obligations. Trespassers have obligations. The interaction of the two sets of "rights" can appear complex to the untrained eye.
zardoz wrote: So after reading your post, I am unclear as to whether you agree or disagree with the settlement.
Years ago, after reading a steady stream of comments exactly like those found on this thread about the "McDonald's Coffee Case" and how the $120 million verdict was "ridiculous" and a condemnation of the "trial lawyers who don't seek justice, but only abuse the system to get rich," I took some time to actually read about the case, read the court opinions, and get some trial transcripts.
I found, there, that the alleged "outrageous conduct" and audacity of the plaintiff's trial lawyer had consisted, initially, of attempting to settle the case with McDonald's for $20,000 -- the approximate cost of the eight skin graft surgeries necessary to repair the burn damage to the 80-year-old client's groin and legs. Indeed, he was waiving his customary personal injury percentage fee to try and get some money to his client quickly as she had few resources to meet her medical needs outside of Medicare.
McDonald's refused to settle.
McDonald's forced the attorney there to take the matter to trial, where the jury heard that McDonalds had had over 750 verified claims of scaldings and burns that required medical treatment, including skin grafts, from employees as well as customers ranging from small children to senior citizens. That, their "quality control" supervisor was aware of and had been warned by medical advisors that the mandated coffee temperature was too high and ran an inherent risk of injuring people, and that he had no idea why McDonad's kept the temperature of its coffee 15-20 degrees higher than any other restaurant chain, but that it was "corporate policy" and that by God, corporate policy was more important than either medical advice or customer (and employee) safety.
The moral of the story for me was 1) not to make conclusions about jury verdicts until I know the actual facts of the case and what the jury actually heard, and 2) not to offer an opinion on a court opinion until I have read it.
A little bit along the lines of not offering an opinion on how to handle a railroad train, if I've never done it, and never even bothered to learn anything about it -- the "legal opinions" offered on this thread strike me in the same degree: exactly which one of the posters has the training and experience ordinarily necessary to offer an opinon on a complex topic, and particularly if they actually know nothing about the case?
Particularly so when many of the same posters appear at other times to complain that what they read in the media about railroads is so often wrong, and gee, why can't the media get it right, but these same critics are willing to suspend their ordinary disbelief when the media reports on a legal proceeding?
In particular, it is this fantasy that very strong opinions, expressed by people who don't even shave yet, let alone have a clue about rights and obligations in modern society, let alone the legal system, are supported by alleged adults who, on this thread, make it clear to young readers that it is perfectly OK to have a strong, uneducated opinion unsupported by anything at all. There are the usual references to "idiots" and "morons" on this thread, including about a Federal District Judge. Let me take exception: the standards necessary to be a Federal District Judge are different, in both kind and degree, than those "required" to be able to post a moronic and idiotic comment to a railfan thread, and that kind of visceral and uninformed disrespect from young railfans is suggestive as to the influence of older railfans for which this thread offers a typical example.
That's a particular cultural blemish strikes me as a more dangerous "what's wrong with" problem than a jury which happened to offer a verdict that distant readers disagree with, probably because, ultimately, they misunderstand it.
sgtbean1 wrote: It's common sense. And don't say he didn't know there was so much or so much voltage on that line. We all know catenary when we see it ...
It's common sense. And don't say he didn't know there was so much or so much voltage on that line. We all know catenary when we see it ...
Then you must rest well knowing that a jury of 12 ordinary people, blessed with common sense, was able to examine this evidence and reach a conclusion. What system would you replace that with?
rsovitzky wrote:Focusing on individual cases, while that may be interesting, conveniently ignores the NET result of all the trees.
What NET result are you seeking? I deal with these forests and these trees every day, and have been for 30 years now. If you have any questions about this system, I would be more than glad to try and answer them for you.
MichaelSol wrote:...the "legal opinions" offered on this thread strike me in the same degree: exactly which one of the posters has the training and experience ordinarily necessary to offer an opinon on a complex topic,
...the "legal opinions" offered on this thread strike me in the same degree: exactly which one of the posters has the training and experience ordinarily necessary to offer an opinon on a complex topic,
So what your basically saying is if you have an opinion on a subject you don't know every possible fact, haven't gone through every possible training and don't have the highest degree of experience with, you should keep your mouth shut? Come on, talking as adults: does the world work that way? Could the world work that way?
Don't get me wrong! I get what your saying, I just don't fully agree with it. Nobody knows everything about anything. According to your post, that would mean nobody could speak out on anything - ever. ;-)
And if you want an example:
In particular, it is this fantasy that very strong opinions, expressed by people who don't even shave yet, let alone have a clue about rights and obligations in modern society, let alone the legal system, are supported by alleged adults who, on this thread, make it clear to young readers that it is perfectly OK to have a strong, uneducated opinion unsupported by anything at all.
I think you just broke your own rule with that statement. You assume to know the posters in this thread and on this forum so well that you can make a statement like that and defend it... I think you just did what you told everyone else not to do: jump to conclusions.
EDIT:
No, I'm not resting well. Apperently, it's become so common to do away with being held accountable for one's actions that it is considered normal for folks to just stick their fingers in the wall outlet unless the utility company / owner posts a sign next to it, clearly stating the wall outlet is hot. People are smart enough squeeze every penny out of someone else, but they can't pull enough braincells together to:
1) Stay off of private property
2) Stay away from the catenary! Nobody lives long enough to convince me anyone over the age of 12 can truthfully claim they couldn't figure out these things are dangerous.
You should protect people from real dangers, I'm not challenging that. There are also dangers that require no additional protection other than the already sufficient protection.
For God's sake: the catenary is suspended what--20 feet in the air?? Why not sue the manufacturer of the boxcar for putting step ladders on the car - after all: shouldn't there be a warning sign saying the ladder should not be used when the boxcar is underneath a catenary wire?
sgtbean1 wrote: So what your basically saying is if you have an opinion on a subject you don't know every possible fact, haven't gone through every possible training and don't have the highest degree of experience with, you should keep your mouth shut? Come on, talking as adults: does the world work that way? Could the world work that way?
If you had never operated a train, never sat in the seat, would you have the arrogance to lecture a locomotive engineer on how to operate a train? Maybe.
Depends on how you were raised, I guess ...
Forests have features, and are different everywhere you go. One forest is not another forest. Even their consituent trees vary from one another. So, if you want to know the forest, get to know the trees.
My late grandfather told me when I was a young lad, "Analysis is the key to understanding." Analysis is wholely dependant upon verifiable facts. What Michael is suggesting is that analysis is impossible without knowing the case well enough to judge. Understanding will be that much more remote.
It's really that simple.
The article says the boys climbed up the ladder to the roofwalk. How old was this boxcar? Where was it, on display somewhere or on the way to a museum?
Maybe they should start adding signs to the tops of all railcars warning about wires, falling off, jumping off, bridges, overpasses, car in motion, wind, rain, etc.
There is no doubt the jury was concerned more with the injuries of two kids than what really happened. More trials end before entering the courtroom simply because one side realizes there is a jury waiting to listen to the case than appear before a jury. I wonder what the railroads offered to settle for before the trial. They have to know they will get rulings like this. You have to note the railroads were trying to reduce the award if it was not overturned. There is some number which they are willing to pay.
sgtbean1 wrote: I think you just broke your own rule with that statement. You assume to know the posters in this thread and on this forum so well that you can make a statement like that and defend it... I think you just did what you told everyone else not to do: jump to conclusions.
Unlike the court case, which I have only a vague familiarity with and could not comment usefully one way or the other, I can read the comments and opinions offered here, including yours, and conclude without much effort or "jumping" that, as with most opinions, they reflect the quality of the experience and background of the poster.
My point is, since obviously some teenagers posted attempting to express quite strong opinions as though they were experienced and educated adults, is that an opinion becomes useful to society as a whole when offered in a context of experience, education, and thoughtful judgment.
And that opinions offered without that context, as on this thread, are "Oxbow Incident" opinions -- the inflamed passions of mob mentality supporting ignorant conclusions usually leading, ironically, to the very "injustice" abhorred by people who constantly misuse the word ...
MichaelSol wrote: sgtbean1 wrote: So what your basically saying is if you have an opinion on a subject you don't know every possible fact, haven't gone through every possible training and don't have the highest degree of experience with, you should keep your mouth shut? Come on, talking as adults: does the world work that way? Could the world work that way?If you had never operated a train, never sat in the seat, would you have the arrogance to lecture a locomotive engineer on how to operate a train? Maybe. Depends on how you were raised, I guess ...
I wouldn't lecture an engineer because I'm sure he'd do a better job than me. But if he's heading for a crash, should I just sit quietly and let him go about it? Come on.
And just so you know (instead of assume): My parents raised me right. I do have the common sense to see the danger in things - like most people, even if I don't fully understand them (or maybe: because I don't fully understand them, I assume an inherent risk). I also consider some accidents to be either just that, or my own stupid fault.
sgtbean1 wrote: I wouldn't lecture an engineer because I'm sure he'd do a better job than me. But if he's heading for a crash, should I just sit quietly and let him go about it? Come on.
You are lecturing a jury that actually heard the evidence. You are lecturing a Judge trained in applying the law to the facts of the case, and in this instance, to the jury verdict. They are charged with "running that particular train." Nothing crashed. They did their jobs.
Maybe you thought the train should have gone faster? Slower? Taken a different route? Carried a different product? Arrived a different destination?
These are the things you would never dream of questioning in the far less complicated world of railroading, let alone the more complex structure of the legal system.
zugmann wrote:I never heard exactly what type of car - but I'd bet it was a covered hopper. Roofwalks and ladders.
The article says boxcar, but covered hopper makes more sense. Maybe they should go after the car manufacturer for making attractive nuisance or faulty designs. They could say the ladders need to be detachable to prevent easy access to the top of the cars. After all, they took them off of boxcars.
MichaelSol wrote: sgtbean1 wrote: I think you just broke your own rule with that statement. You assume to know the posters in this thread and on this forum so well that you can make a statement like that and defend it... I think you just did what you told everyone else not to do: jump to conclusions. Unlike the court case, which I have only a vague familiarity with and could not comment usefully one way or the other, I can read the comments and opinions offered here, including yours, and conclude without much effort or "jumping" that, as with most opinions, they reflect the quality of the experience and background of the poster.My point is, since obviously some teenagers posted attempting to express quite strong opinions as though they were experienced and educated adults, is that an opinion becomes useful to society as a whole when offered in a context of experience, education, and thoughtful judgment.And that opinions offered without that context, as on this thread, are "Oxbow Incident" opinions -- the inflamed passions of mob mentality supporting ignorant conclusions usually leading, ironically, to the very "injustice" abhorred by people who constantly misuse the word ...
I don;t pretent to know the details in this case either. I just do what I always do (and what even my job requires me to do): I formulate my opinion with the facts that I have. If in the future more details are presented that give a whole different spin to this subject, I will be man enough to admit I was wrong. And you can hold me to that, my friend.
So, since I still have other things to do tonight, I will say this as a final comment: I respectfully disagree with you, MichaelSol.
sgtbean1 wrote: I don;t pretent to know the details in this case either.
I don;t pretent to know the details in this case either.
Nothing wrong with that; but experience suggests that pretending that "details" -- i.e. "facts" -- don't matter is what surely leads to not just misinformed opinions, but judgment errors as well. But just as you use a casual excuse to not know the facts about something you offer a strong opinion on, I am sure the young men in question, did, in fact, offer the same argument at court and the jury may well have believed them -- and absolved them too of any societal duty to know what they were doing ... or talking about.
As you might by now guess, I am suggesting that being uninformed and getting electrocuted can result from the identical analytical process used by several of the posters on this thread: not knowing much, not caring much, not bothering to find out.
And what I find more remarkable is that adult railfans will, when it supports their own preconceived notions and opinions, encourage younger railfans to think in exactly that fashion -- that uninformed opinions are to be encouraged if it supports the adults' own uninformed opinions. And for all the interesting ramifications of that scenario, the most interesting one may be that the young men in the lawsuit may well have been young railfans, thinking and acting with exactly the same kind of lack of caution for facts and causuality as they would have been explicitly encouraged to exercise on this thread ...
Gentlemen: If I may interrupt this lively discussion with a question of my own?
Michael - strictly from curiosity on my part - could you give me an example of what might have influenced this jury or any jury to award such a large amount (think McD's and coffee) and seem to go with what seems to be unrealistic verdicts to the layperson?
I think most jurors try very hard to be fair and listen very carefully (at least here they do or did when I was on such a jury) so maybe some insight into what may cause such a judgement.
Mook
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Mr. Sol, are you a politician? You've filled many screens with your words and have yet to express a discernable opinion on the topic of the thread and in the process have come very close to insulting those of us who are excercising our right to express an opinion on a judgement in a case that doesn't seem to follow common sense as we know it. I looked through the posts and no one claimed to have a valid legal opinion, just an opinion.
I'm guessing Mr. Sol is an attorney. Just a hunch, maybe I'm wrong. Black is white, up is down....and all of it is billable hours. He's got a discernable opinion, which is nobody here is qualified to criticize the legal system. Now, of course, he probably has no interest in the status quo where that systems is concerned - or does he? I'm sure we'll find out!
Angus99 wrote: I'm guessing Mr. Sol is an attorney. Just a hunch, maybe I'm wrong. Black is white, up is down....and all of it is billable hours. He's got a discernable opinion, which is nobody here is qualified to criticize the legal system. Now, of course, he probably has no interest in the status quo where that systems is concerned - or does he? I'm sure we'll find out!
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. -Julius Caesar
("People gladly believe what they wish to.")
Way to jump in there slagging lawyers (changing the subject, in case you don't follow). Your post is example of what we have turned to discussing over the past two pages; how little people know, but how firmly they hold to their intended beliefs because it is merely convenient for them. It is one thing to express an opinion of this case and say, "What a surprising penalty awarded by the courts. I guess there must be more about this case than meets the eye. I would be curious to know why the railroad was faulted to such an extent. We would all learn something."
But ragging on a jury, about which you know nothing (one of the trees I mentioned earlier), you assume the entire forest is a wasteland and good for nothing. It's a good thing others in higher positions of learning don't think that way or we'd still be treating the vapors in women.
Let's stick to the ideas and facts, and from there we can have an enlightened opinion. Attacking a messenger, no matter how distasteful his message, is illogical and puerile. Let's try for something better here.
-Crandell
Mookie wrote: Michael - strictly from curiosity on my part - could you give me an example of what might have influenced this jury or any jury to award such a large amount (think McD's and coffee) and seem to go with what seems to be unrealistic verdicts to the layperson?
The first thing an experienced trial lawyer tries to get the jury to agree to in selection process is that "if we prove the damages, will you award them no matter what the amount?" This creates a contract/bond with the jury that jurors generally take seriously when they go into the jury room.
The second thing an experienced trial lawyer tries not to do is to anger the jury. This is where railroad counsel -- more so than in any other industry I have seen -- generally falls flat on their face, often coming into the courtroom with an arrogance and demeanor completely alienating to a typical jury of decent people. In turn, those jurors are much more willing to look back on that first promise they made to Plaintiff's counsel, and look for reasons to award the maximum that can be proven.
Damages can seem pretty arbitrary. But, if there are permanent brain injuries, loss of enjoyment of life, especially to a young life, those damages can add up pretty quickly. We value life, and the ability to get a job, to raise a family, to play with your kids, to help them through college, to be able to teach your Grandkids swimming. And that's tough to argue in a trial that these kinds of losses "aren't worth much." A lifetime of earnings for a typical college graduate now exceeds $3 million. Ongoing medical expenses can easily exceed $3 million for an ongoing, lifetime need for specialized treatment. Add onto that the hedonic losses now allowed in many states, and damages from a permanent disability to a young person can easily come in between $3 million and $20 million in actual, provable, damages. For two young people, if the damages were permanent and serious enough, and they otherwise might have had some real positive life attributes prior to the injuries, the verdict wouldn't be remarkable.
Punitive damages are permitted under our system for behavior which the defendant knew posed a risk based on prior history. The McDonald's verdict was clearly a jury penalty to a corporation that routinely, intentionally, exposed its customers to a serious danger, and had a long history of not only disregarding the danger, but forcing injured people to go to court to recover -- most of which didn't of course because most people don't want to be tied up in court for three years. And the Jury knew that McDonald's had adopted a strategy -- for no good business reason as it turned out -- of keeping its coffee way too hot, knowing with certainty that it was going to continue to horribly burn people, because its risk management people said that was inevitable based on probabilities and well-established past experience.
Big damage verdicts are routinely mis-reported by media. They report the actual verdict, without reporting that most states now require a present value calculation to be done on the overall award. This can reduce the "verdict" to a present value of as little as a third or less of the published number. These, in turn, are often turned into a structured annuity that has the characteristics of a life insurance policy for the defendant corporation -- they pay an insurance entity what looks a lot like an insurance premium to pay the injured party a settlement amount each year for life -- based upon an actuarial determination and risk assessment regarding that "life". In this fashion, even a very large award like $24 million might ultimately be reduced to a net actual cost after taxes to the defendant corporation of something on the order of $2 million or less.
Too, in "comparative negligence" jurisdictions, the jury must assign a percentage of negligence blame, which the Court then allocates against the overall verdict. For instance, the jury might find that $24 million represents the damages to the plaintiffs, but then find that the plaintiffs themselves were 45% negligent, so the actual award against the defendant would be $13.5 million.
In addition, really big awards that are "out there" are pretty much routinely subject to appeal -- and those are routinely settled out of court. Likewise, those are typically not reported by the media, so the semi-hysterical reaction to the initial announcements of such awards are rarely put into perspective due to the relatively complex nature of the appellate process and the confidential nature of settlements.
To me, the newspaper report on this particular incident didn't tell me much; not enough to have much of an opinion worth anything because not enough key information was reported. Kind of like the newspaper reporting a railroad train hitting a car and then colliding with seven cows in a nearby field.
If I don't know anything about railroads, I might suspect that the railroad engineer wasn't steering the train properly. But, if I didn't actually know anything about railroads, I would hope that I had the common good sense not to write a letter to the editor complaining about the d*** railroad running over cars and innocent cows minding their own business. After all, only a moron and an idiot would just hit a car, and then some cows. Why didn't he put on the brakes? Why didn't he steer around them? And proving to all the world that I didn't, in fact, know anything about railroading.
And I have, in fact, stood in the cab of a locomotive while a newspaper reporter asked, in all seriousness -- in fact, he had begun sweating profusely -- why the engineer was not steering the train.
Well, this thread is something like that. People who don't know a d*** thing about it have all sorts of opinions about the legal system and persist in proving they don't know anything about it by announcing it to the world.
Any legal arguements aside, this is the Irony. IF the RR did have signs all over the place saying :
Warning High Tension Power Lines
Do Not Climb On Top Of Cars Or You
Will Be Reduced To Smoking Bacon
How long to you want to bet before some morons read it and said, "Uuuuhh...thats Coool, lets try it" and then blame the RRs for "daring" them to try it...Stupid people should not be rewarded. I hope the Appeal gets appealed to the next higher level till some common sense preveals.
Have fun with your trains
rrnut282 wrote: You've filled many screens with your words and have yet to express a discernable opinion on the topic of the thread and in the process have come very close to insulting those of us who are excercising our right to express an opinion ...
On a thread that started out characterizing two young people you've never met as "idiots" and "morons", you have just now become sensitive to possible insults?
The bulk of the opinon offered on this thread ultimately, utilizes the same kind of flawed logic as the two young men in the lawsuit: facts don't matter; reality doesn't matter, but your opinion sure does! In other words, you will say what you want, which is only a passing fancy away from a young person's stubborn declaration: I'll do what I want.
And on a forum with young railfans, they begin to see that the adult world's hypocrisy on these issues supports the notion their opinions, no matter how poorly formed, are a matter of some "right", so why not their actions too? In young minds, the step is a short one.
That is why I contend that threads like this, purporting to discuss "problems" with other people, almost always seem to attract the kind of participants who are the problem ...
Mr. Sol,
I liked your last post, lucid, and explanitory, and I even got a glimpse of your opinion on the subject. All that and the hairs on the back of my neck didn't stick up. Feel free to continue to ignore my last post. I'll come back to this thread if and when more facts come out.
edit: make that your next to last post. I did not resort to character assasination of the invovled parties. My comment was with the judge. Please, don't lump me with others.
Time to take this website off of my favorites list.
vsmith wrote: Any legal arguements aside, this is the Irony. IF the RR did have signs all over the place saying :Warning High Tension Power LinesDo Not Climb On Top Of Cars Or YouWill Be Reduced To Smoking BaconHow long to you want to bet before some morons read it and said, "Uuuuhh...thats Coool, lets try it" and then blame the RRs for "daring" them to try it...
How long to you want to bet before some morons read it and said, "Uuuuhh...thats Coool, lets try it" and then blame the RRs for "daring" them to try it...
I agree. People should be punished, by death if possible, for things that haven't even happened yet. And if it hasn't actually happened, let's make it up and criticize them for that too.
And if the same quality of thought goes into railfan forum posts and railfan dumb actions -- perhaps the penalty should be applied now, to the posts, before the real damage gets done in the real world ...
I am still trying to get some solid conversation out of this - so.....
I am a firm believer in taking responsibility for your actions. Having said that - would a plaintiff's lawyer take the position that young people under the age of majority should be protected by the adults? Do you suppose the lawyers brought up things that any railroad should do to prevent this?
Also - where did the trespassing part come in or do you think it even came into this at all?
This is what mystifies me the most.
Mookie wrote: I am a firm believer in taking responsibility for your actions. Having said that - would a plaintiff's lawyer take the position that young people under the age of majority should be protected by the adults? Do you suppose the lawyers brought up things that any railroad should do to prevent this? Also - where did the trespassing part come in or do you think it even came into this at all?
The newspaper article is remarkably uninformative about the case. I cannot imagine that trespass did not play a significant role in the case. It had to have.
On the other hand, I have a detail list of 28 fatalities in a Railroad Electrification department occurring between the years 1915-1950, suffered by employees very familiar with, and charged with knowledge of, energized catenary and control systems. Were they "morons" and "idiots" as characterized earlier in this thread? I doubt it. But they at least had the chance to know the dangers.
I quoted the applicable law on the matter, earlier, which I think is a good distillation of good law on the matter, and that is that negligent injury resulting from trespass is mitigated by the need to warn and protect under circumstances of inherent danger. To me, that is common sense, even if common sense isn't otherwise very common.
And the function of juries is to assess the balance in situations precisely such as this one because it is a fact question and the rule of law on a case such as this states that it is a fact question. As it should be.
I am probably as interested as the next guy on what was presented to the jury, and the judge apparently wrote quite an opinon on the matter.
But, to form an opinion solely on the basis of the newspaper article, either way, would be an exercise only in promoting personal prejudice at the sacrifice of the facts of the actual case. And I can't generate much of a prejudice either way since I don't know the young men, and I don't know what the railroad did or did not do to warn of the hazard. No, they shouldn't have been on the property. But no, that doesn't make them "fair game" either.
I do know that I have lived and worked within 200 feet or so of energized, high voltage catenary for longer than just about anyone alive. I have stood next to intelligent, experienced adult human beings, some of whom even worked for railroads otherwise, who looked up and said, "what's that?"
And, having known them, I can report that they weren't "morons" or "idiots".
I am thinking: At first blush the human reaction would be - they tresspassed, they got in trouble, they got burned (literally). But now I am thinking maybe you could look at it from a different angle - that we all have to live on this round world and we need to make it safer for all of us - as much as possible. Just another way of looking at this.
But do you have any offerings as to what the railroad could/should do so this won't happen again? Seems to me if the judge thinks there is blame on both sides, then there should be a prevention in there somewhere?
zugmann wrote:http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/219163I really don't know what to say. Except it is a sad day in america.
What the heck. These two should have been sued for $24 million. I'm 17, and it would have to take a large amount of mental handicap to actually get me to be stupid enough to trespass onto a high-speed corridor, with security as it is, climb on top of a freight car after tagging it, and touching the high-voltage cable that has "Death!" written all over it. I'm suprised and upset that these two didn't die. What great candidates for the Darwin Awards. Fortunately, there's always runners up...
steam_marc wrote: zugmann wrote:http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/219163I really don't know what to say. Except it is a sad day in america. What the heck. These two should have been sued for $24 million. I'm 17, and it would have to take a large amount of mental handicap to actually get me to be stupid enough to trespass onto a high-speed corridor, with security as it is, climb on top of a freight car after tagging it, and touching the high-voltage cable that has "Death!" written all over it. I'm suprised and upset that these two didn't die. What great candidates for the Darwin Awards. Fortunately, there's always runners up...
That's harsh, I'm glad they're not dead. I don't defend them, trespassing is wrong and I don't think they are entitled to jack but I wouldn't wish for their death.
Michael,
How much warning is required before it's considered "enough"? Do you feel that this country has become overly litigious or have we simply gotten away with things for a very long time?
steam_marc wrote: What the heck. ... I'm 17 ... I'm ... upset that these two didn't die.
What the heck. ... I'm 17 ... I'm ... upset that these two didn't die.
This is Exhibit "A" of what adult railfans create on Trains forums by endorsing uninformed opinions about the real world offered by inexperienced young people who think they have all the answers. And there is something wrong with any railfan that thinks this is "OK".
MichaelSol wrote: steam_marc wrote: What the heck. ... I'm 17 ... I'm ... upset that these two didn't die. This is Exhibit "A" of what adult railfans create on Trains forums by endorsing uninformed opinions about the real world offered by inexperienced young people who think they have all the answers. And there is something wrong with any railfan that thinks this is "OK".
Sorry about that. I lost my temper over the stupidity of this whole deal, and I'm calming down as I look at it again. True, I'm glad they're not dead, but I'm still ticked that they will never have to work in their lives because of the money they just made from that mistake. This little incident has made me wonder whatever happened to common sense.
CNW 6000 wrote: How much warning is required before it's considered "enough"? Do you feel that this country has become overly litigious or have we simply gotten away with things for a very long time?
Legal systems are the way of avoiding personal notions of "justice" -- duels and sabotage and honor killings and genocide and such -- and if people don't get their day in court over perceived wrongs, what's their alternative? In socialist countries where the all-powerful state cannot be sued for its own negligence, the alternative usually results in broken lives, or passive sabotage, or outright revolution. Compared to those alternatives, the term "overly litigious" sounds almost delicately civilized. And that is always a good question: compared to what? Our legal system does, in fact, protect the small and powerless and, since there happens to be a lot of them in any society, this society does have a special burden because of the special acess it gives to the poor and the injured by virtue of equal access laws and the contingency fee system. And that doesn't mean every poor or injured person has a valid complaint, but that can only be determined after the system is accessed, not by closing the door to the mere raising of the allegation.
The "real" hardball litigation that people read about tends to be when a big corporation, sticking out its hairy chest, declares "we never settle." Well, that's when judges and juries can find no sympathy on damages for them, or when punitive damages are granted. And it's those same big companies, with highly paid public relations departments, who whine and cry that the system is unfair even as their CEO's take home 10,000 times the salary of the guy on the assembly line and as they publicly proclaim their highest rate of return in history.
The injured person, even if he wins the case, has no such public relations department to call the newspaper or otherwise tell you about why it was fair that he won his case. So, at the outset, the public knowledge of these cases is skewed, intentionally so, by very wealthy interests which can not only well afford to compensate those they injure, but can usually well afford to undertake safety measures that often their own safety departments urge that they would be well advised to do.
And the fact that otherwise intelligent people allow the public information well to be poisoned without careful attention to the underlying facts results in the kind of world as posted above, if the uncritical and brainwashed 17 year olds were in charge: wishing upon other young people their ultimate deaths, because of a day's lark and misunderstanding about high voltage electrification.
On that, I do have a strong opinon: it is pathological to feel that way and when adult railfans can look to the fruits of their own uninformed attitudes and see "what is happening to the country" they can look squarely in the mirror as far as I am concerned and see exactly where the blame lies.
Several years back, I sat at the back of a Court Martial of an Engineering Officer, a Major, who was charged with dereliction of duty and negligence in the death of a young Sapper who was on a corrugated tin roof in Bosnia. The soldier inadvertently touched an overhead high tension wire and electrocuted himself. The soldier was a trained electrician who ought to have known what he was doing, but he was also under pressure to complete a task that was being done "under the minimums" that would have been acceptable in most civilized jurisdictions. The wire was perhaps five feet above the roof's apex.
Why the Major who was nowhere nearby, and who was undoubtedly very busy doing legitimate and pressing business of another kind, who in turn expected better supervision from his trusted Sergeants and the supervising Warrant Officer? Because it was his responsiblity to ensure the safe performance of the work that the young father was doing. The Sapper was trained, experienced, and so were his supervisors. In the heat of the moment, figuratively and literally (it was a very hot day), the young fellow was distracted enough to cause his own death.
Accidents happen, even during trespass. If the accident was, in and of itself, preventable, then some of the onus (jury decides based on the evidence and on their instruction of the law) must fall on the entity responsible for the use and maintenance of the device or structure.
I was at that Court Martial, but not at the trial in question. So, I cannot generalize with any credibility to this case. But I can generalize that the facts are not necessarily evident in the conclusion(s) reached by the jury, puzzling though they may at first appear to be.
Yep, gotta agree with the above post. They were trespassing, and that's the whole problem. If companies are expected to post warning signs for the dangers associated with hazards that untrained and trespassing peoples may encounter while breaking the law on their property, we can only assume that this will lead to even more ridiculous costs that we all will pay for. I can sympathize with electrical burns, but they shouldn't have been there. One comment that stuck out, that the electrical hazard was hidden on the property, is a flat out untruth. Isn't cantery located directly above the tracks on insulators? In fact, to the untrained eye, it appears to look just like an electrical power line. Why didn't these kids climb the 35KV line next to the road to get a better view of the city? Maybe because they knew better?
An artful lawyer was a ticket to a payday. Most people won't make that much money in their lifetime, and this lucky idiot just won it big. By rights, he should be dead. I know of people who died instantly from shocks that were at a far lower voltage, and they were actually trained to work with it.
Mookie wrote:Gentlemen: If I may interrupt this lively discussion with a question of my own? Michael - strictly from curiosity on my part - could you give me an example of what might have influenced this jury or any jury to award such a large amount (think McD's and coffee) and seem to go with what seems to be unrealistic verdicts to the layperson? I think most jurors try very hard to be fair and listen very carefully (at least here they do or did when I was on such a jury) so maybe some insight into what may cause such a judgement.Mook
Folks,
While this verdict does seem ridiculous, I will always remember a Nova show that was shown a few years ago regarding the McDonalds Coffee Burn judgement. Prior to watching this show it was felt by me that the award given to this woman was outrageous. However, actual photos of her 3rd degree burns (the most severe type) on her genital area were shown and they looked gruesome and extremely painful. She had several surgeries and skin grafts to repair her injuries and nearly a year of recuperation. What was most interesting was listening to the interview of some of the jury members during this show. Apparently, McDonalds had received thousands of complaints of moderate to severe injuries to infants and the elderly from their coffee, which was served at nearly the boiling point of water. McDonalds ignored all of these complaints. The jurors agreed that the award was excessive, but felt the only way to get McDonalds attention was to award this particular victim a large amount of money. McDonalds then quit serving coffee at such an unusually high temperature.
Things are now always what they seem. Just a thought.
Wayne
Modeling HO Freelance Logging Railroad.
I understand your point, but at what time does common sense enter the equation?
I have had McBungholes hot lava coffee for long times before, and I would never ever ever ever place that cup of napalm into my crotch! Thats what cup holders were invented for and while I can see the reason for a "get the point across" judgment, theres just no way I would do something so stupid myselfas to place something like that in a place so special while driving, nor would I climb a RR car just becuase I could, power lines or not. I work around high energy power sources, so I'm accutly aware of the issues (NEVER point around energized equipement) maybe thats tainted my opinion of this subject, maybe...
choochoobuff wrote:Do you ever get the opinion that some people just like hear themselves talk? ...!
Do you ever get the opinion that some people just like hear themselves talk? ...!
I agree with you. That's pretty much what I have been getting at. People with little substance on which to base their opinions get shrill and indignant when someone points out the flaws in their reasoning...not the least of which is that they have little or no information on which to hang those opinions. Such carelessness may fly in the bar, but not in the world where people's livelihoods, welfare, and careers hang in the balance. The grownups in those circumstances like something a bit more pithy than mere supposition. So, if that was your point, I'm right there with you.
sfcouple wrote: Things are not always what they seem. Just a thought.
Things are not always what they seem. Just a thought.
And that's pretty much the point: these people don't know the facts so much as its an opportunity to vent their uninformed opinions, setting a fine example of the decision-making process for younger rail fans: i.e. facts don't matter and everybody else is stupid. They're not getting the point that their expressions here mimic perhaps absolutely the thought process of young guys doing something stupid in a railyard: I don't need to know any actual facts, I already know all there is to know .... and they will pronounce, as emphasis, "end of story" even as they embark upon a potentially fatal misadventure based on complete ignorance.
Yes, I do agree. There are times when common sense needs to kick in and tell one not to climb on top of a freight car located underneath wires. And in the case of McDonalds, the spills were accidental and not necessarily the result of someone's lack of judgement. Hot coffee served at drive thru fast food restaurants is an open invitation for such an accident. However, it's one thing to accidently spill coffee and another to deliberatly tresspass and climb on top of a freight car. So my McD analagy may not be appropriate here.
I am in no way justifying this award, and generally object when people are rewarded for their stupidity. We recently had a situation at our Zoo in San Francisco where 2 idiots were taunting and harassing a female tiger. The tiger got very angry and somehow managed to escape from her enclosure, strolled by people who were not involved with the taunting, and actually hunted those 2 guys down. She killed one and injured the other. Unfortunately, the police had no choice but to kill the tiger before she harmed anyone else. Now in this case I actually felt sorry for the tiger, as she was just doing what tigers do. But the families involved hired a well known lawyer, Mark Geragos, and they will probably become millionares. As far as I'm concerned, the city should just pay for the burial and medical expenses and nothing else.
I don't know what the answer is, sometimes the large awards might be justified and other times they are just absolutely ridiculous.
MichaelSol wrote:On the other hand, I have a detail list of 28 fatalities in a Railroad Electrification department occurring between the years 1915-1950, suffered by employees very familiar with, and charged with knowledge of, energized catenary and control systems. Were they "morons" and "idiots" as characterized earlier in this thread? I doubt it. But they at least had the chance to know the dangers.
Having seen that list, my take is that many of the fatalities in the earlier years were due to a relative lack of experience with electricity. The fatalities seem to taper off after ca 1930 (or so), possibly due to better safety measures by the road in question and by a greatly expanded awareness of electricity by the average person.
erikem wrote: MichaelSol wrote: On the other hand, I have a detail list of 28 fatalities in a Railroad Electrification department occurring between the years 1915-1950, suffered by employees very familiar with, and charged with knowledge of, energized catenary and control systems. Were they "morons" and "idiots" as characterized earlier in this thread? I doubt it. But they at least had the chance to know the dangers.Having seen that list, my take is that many of the fatalities in the earlier years were due to a relative lack of experience with electricity. The fatalities seem to taper off after ca 1930 (or so), possibly due to better safety measures by the road in question and by a greatly expanded awareness of electricity by the average person.
MichaelSol wrote: On the other hand, I have a detail list of 28 fatalities in a Railroad Electrification department occurring between the years 1915-1950, suffered by employees very familiar with, and charged with knowledge of, energized catenary and control systems. Were they "morons" and "idiots" as characterized earlier in this thread? I doubt it. But they at least had the chance to know the dangers.
Yes, the Company spent more time in training, but after 1930, labeling everything "High Voltage" and "Danger" was the rule of the day. I never met Reiner Beeuwkes, Chief Electrical Engineer 1914-1948, but I knew Wylie, Barnes, Morgan, Kirk, and Frazier -- the Electrical Engineers 1948-1974 --and, believe me, those guys made sure that the metal warning signs were everywhere.
And justly so. They knew that the legal and moral "obligation to warn" was upon them, not upon clueless teenagers to figure it out "the hard way".
The problem with catenary is that it doesn't actually resemble anything that people ordinarily associate with high voltage power supply: it's close to the ground and the equipment, it has these great looping arcs of steel messenger wire, with a hanging contact wire over a railroad track, if you happen know that it's a contact wire. How common is any of that?
Not on any power line I have ever seen.
sfcouple wrote: I am in no way justifying this award, and generally object when people are rewarded for their stupidity.
Well, I don't know that being burned and disabled for life is any kind of "reward" no matter how much the compensation involved. You and I have a different concept of suffering and "reward".
I once made a comment, which I regret, upon hearing that a teenager had drowned in an irrigation ditch that had only two feet of water. "How stupid was he?" was my initial response. Naturally, when I was informed that his IQ was approximately 65, that he had Down's Syndrome, and had panicked, I made a chastened apology. I realized then that I am not good enough, nor should I pretend to be, to judge as to who should suffer, who should die, and who should get stock options even as they wreck a company based on notions of "justice". Since I am called upon to make such decisions when I am on the bench, I do so on the basis of law and am grateful for jury verdicts which are, in fact, designed to bring common sense to such decisions.
But I do recognize we have a system of laws designed to adjudicate and adjust conflicting claims, based on established concepts of law, not notions of vigilante justice, and compared to much of history and much of the world experience, I appreciate and honor that system.
sfcouple wrote: Yes, I do agree. There are times when common sense needs to kick in and tell one not to climb on top of a freight car located underneath wires. And in the case of McDonalds, the spills were accidental and not necessarily the result of someone's lack of judgement. Hot coffee served at drive thru fast food restaurants is an open invitation for such an accident. However, it's one thing to accidently spill coffee and another to deliberatly tresspass and climb on top of a freight car. So my McD analagy may not be appropriate here. I am in no way justifying this award, and generally object when people are rewarded for their stupidity. We recently had a situation at our Zoo in San Francisco where 2 idiots were taunting and harassing a female tiger. The tiger got very angry and somehow managed to escape from her enclosure, strolled by people who were not involved with the taunting, and actually hunted those 2 guys down. She killed one and injured the other. Unfortunately, the police had no choice but to kill the tiger before she harmed anyone else. Now in this case I actually felt sorry for the tiger, as she was just doing what tigers do. But the families involved hired a well known lawyer, Mark Geragos, and they will probably become millionares. As far as I'm concerned, the city should just pay for the burial and medical expenses and nothing else. I don't know what the answer is, sometimes the large awards might be justified and other times they are just absolutely ridiculous. Wayne
I am not sure what it takes to taunt a tiger, but tigers should not be able to get out of their cage no matter how they feel.
I think I had all my questions answered.
Thank you!
sgtbean1 wrote: .....the catenary is suspended what--20 feet in the air?? Why not sue the manufacturer of the boxcar for putting step ladders on the car - after all: shouldn't there be a warning sign saying the ladder should not be used when the boxcar is underneath a catenary wire?
.....the catenary is suspended what--20 feet in the air?? Why not sue the manufacturer of the boxcar for putting step ladders on the car - after all: shouldn't there be a warning sign saying the ladder should not be used when the boxcar is underneath a catenary wire?
This part of the event has me puzzled: I thought that years ago the FRA mandated that all handbrakes be lowered such that a person could apply/release the handbrake from the platform just above the drawbar, and at the same time the FRA mandated that all the ladders that go to the top of the car be removed and replaced with short grabirons. The reasoning for these directives was (for safety reasons) TO REMOVE THE ABILITY to CLIMB ON TOP OF THE CAR .
It has been years since I've seen a boxcar with ladders going up to the roof and/or the roofway walking platforms. Did these kids somehow find one of the few (if any) remaining high ladders, or did they find some other, more 'involved' (hence thought-out) method of reaching the rooftop and subsequently the wires?
So he is an attorney then, eh? And you too, apparently? And that has absolutely no influence on your criticisms of the discussion here regarding insane jury awards? Your profession, and how your income is derived, has no bearing on it? He, and you, should have started by announcing your own interests.
But of course, you're right. It's attorneys that are the real heroes here - what am I thinking. That's why lawyers have the reputation they do - for being sterling defenders of the people. I'm sure the lawyers' percentage of that $24 million couldn't have been any more than.....say $12 million? I'm sure the fact that railroads are huge corporation with deep pockets NEVER entered into their strategy. It's entirely relevant to the discussion, however much you wish it isn't.
Sorry for the delay in responding, duty was calling.
I'm going to take the recent advice of a forum moderator: state your opinion and move on.
MichaelSol wrote:Compared to those alternatives, the term "overly litigious" sounds almost delicately civilized. And that is always a good question: compared to what? Our legal system does, in fact, protect the small and powerless and, since there happens to be a lot of them in any society, this society does have a special burden because of the special acess it gives to the poor and the injured by virtue of equal access laws and the contingency fee system.
Well, compare it to other civilized legal systems in the world. You apparently suggest that there's either the US system, or the one that's controlled by the state. Forget that very quickly please, and you'll find that for instance the Dutch system - although I'm certainly NOT claiming it's perfect! - is fundamentally not very different from the US system. I can also tell you, aside from going into laws that would or would not make it possible, that this would be a very clear cut case in the Dutch system. NO WAY would they EVER get awarded 24M; they'd get their fair day in court (yes, if they can't afford legal representation, they are offered legal assistance by a special government department - very similar to the US system) and be told to take this as a lesson and requested to leave.
I do have to add that my opinion may be influenced by the fact that Dutch society is much more aware of personal responsiblility, simply because of the fact that if YOU do something stupid, YOU are resposible for doing something stupid - and the judge will tell you that flat to your face. (BTW: your comparison about the 28 fatalities among electrical professionals and somebody doing stupid things is flawed; if someone is a professional, that does not mean accidents can't happen. But you're almost saying accidents and doing something stupid are the same)
Very good point.
Personally, I think nobody else on these pages wished these young men were dead. I certainly didn't. On the other hand, HAD they died my opinion is they'd have nobody to blaime but themselves.
sgtbean1 wrote: Well, compare it to other civilized legal systems in the world. You apparently suggest that there's either the US system, or the one that's controlled by the state. Forget that very quickly please, and you'll find that for instance the Dutch system - although I'm certainly NOT claiming it's perfect! - is fundamentally not very different from the US system.
Well, compare it to other civilized legal systems in the world. You apparently suggest that there's either the US system, or the one that's controlled by the state. Forget that very quickly please, and you'll find that for instance the Dutch system - although I'm certainly NOT claiming it's perfect! - is fundamentally not very different from the US system.
Well, I am Dutch, and have some historical familiarity with the system. Our Anglo concept of "Trial by Jury" came from Holland, courtesy of King William if I am recalling correctly. It just goes to show that not all invasions are bad. In the U.S., we continue to honor the heritage with the Dollar ("Thaler"), a red, white, a blue flag, and the "United Provinces" were obviously the direct inspiration for the "United States".
Certainly, small homogeneous nations such as Holland and Japan have different views on compensation for injury. I think the U.S. system tries its best to match injury with compensation. Yes, for someone losing their earning capacity for life, in the United States, the numbers add up pretty quickly. U.S. courts do compensate people for future medical care because there is no nationalized alternative, and these can be substantial components of awards that wouldn't be seen in some other countries.
And, these are generally egregious cases -- 97% of filed injury complaints settle out of court. And they are often egregious because of corporate litigation conduct coupled, often times, with completely misguided and often illegal corporate behavior.
steam_marc wrote:I'm amazed that they didn't die. Every now and then, you hear of someone touching the wire and dying instantly. These guys got really lucky.
They didn't actually touch the wire. The voltage was sufficient to arc across to one of them. I suspect that the jury devoted particular attention to that factor.
Angus99 wrote: So he is an attorney then, eh? And you too, apparently? And that has absolutely no influence on your criticisms of the discussion here regarding insane jury awards? Your profession, and how your income is derived, has no bearing on it? He, and you, should have started by announcing your own interests.
Thank-you for playing along with me. It now point out to you that your conclusion, based on what you surmised from my post, couldn't me more wrong. I am a professor of psychology at a Canadian University. I also retired after 30 years as an Army Officer. Does that help to make my earlier point clear to you? When you are uninformed, you make conclusions at your peril.
QED.
P.S. - my last statment, above, inadvertently speaks to the whole point that Michael is making...without sufficient information, some people get into trouble. If there is fault to be apportioned, a jury would be expected to wade through the information and make a decision based upon law...not justice. I feel these people couldn't all be dolts, so they did what seemed best to them. Who are we to know otherwise? I wasn't on that jury...were you?
Bucyrus wrote: sfcouple wrote: Yes, I do agree. There are times when common sense needs to kick in and tell one not to climb on top of a freight car located underneath wires. And in the case of McDonalds, the spills were accidental and not necessarily the result of someone's lack of judgement. Hot coffee served at drive thru fast food restaurants is an open invitation for such an accident. However, it's one thing to accidently spill coffee and another to deliberatly tresspass and climb on top of a freight car. So my McD analagy may not be appropriate here. I am in no way justifying this award, and generally object when people are rewarded for their stupidity. We recently had a situation at our Zoo in San Francisco where 2 idiots were taunting and harassing a female tiger. The tiger got very angry and somehow managed to escape from her enclosure, strolled by people who were not involved with the taunting, and actually hunted those 2 guys down. She killed one and injured the other. Unfortunately, the police had no choice but to kill the tiger before she harmed anyone else. Now in this case I actually felt sorry for the tiger, as she was just doing what tigers do. But the families involved hired a well known lawyer, Mark Geragos, and they will probably become millionares. As far as I'm concerned, the city should just pay for the burial and medical expenses and nothing else. I don't know what the answer is, sometimes the large awards might be justified and other times they are just absolutely ridiculous. Wayne I am not sure what it takes to taunt a tiger, but tigers should not be able to get out of their cage no matter how they feel.
Unfortunatly there were design issues with the enclosure that will regretably work in favor of the knucklheads defense. Personally I think these drunken idiots should have been tossed back to the tigers. All I can hope is that the case was so well known and the lost tiger was so well loved that no local jury would award them anything ridiculous, or just rest in the knowledge that with screw offs like this, any awarded money they get would quickly be blown partying and they would be right back on their stupid drunken butts without a penny in no time. Afterall, Mike Tyson blew 30 million in only a few years, no brain, no gain!
Anyway enough of Tiger Times, back to topic...
sgtbean1 wrote: I can also tell you, aside from going into laws that would or would not make it possible, that this would be a very clear cut case in the Dutch system. NO WAY would they EVER get awarded 24M; they'd get their fair day in court (yes, if they can't afford legal representation, they are offered legal assistance by a special government department - very similar to the US system) and be told to take this as a lesson and requested to leave.
I can also tell you, aside from going into laws that would or would not make it possible, that this would be a very clear cut case in the Dutch system. NO WAY would they EVER get awarded 24M; they'd get their fair day in court (yes, if they can't afford legal representation, they are offered legal assistance by a special government department - very similar to the US system) and be told to take this as a lesson and requested to leave.
The U.S. system is generally one of comparative negligence. The system takes no pleasure in telling profoundly injured people "too bad, roll your wheelchair back out onto the street". Comparative negligence recognizes that there is a real world in which each party can be, in some fashion, negligent. In a perfect world, the boys would have been born smart and know all about electricity from the day they could walk. In a perfect world, the railroad would have camera monitors everywhere to protect their property and to be able to intercept trespassers, including kids, cows, horses ....
It's not a perfect world and the system of comparative negligence recognizes that.
As to the $24 million, which seems to be the issue, you did not understand my description of how the system works. A "verdict" as to damages is just the start. And my complaint with the newspaper article, and newspaper articles like it, is that no doubt the writer, having just come from covering a dog show, and on her way to sit through a city council meeting, was advised that the jury had rendered a verdict for $24 million. Well, I know the system pretty well, and I can tell you I don't know what that means. Ordinarily, these judgments are then adjusted for present value, and for comparative negligence. And by the time the Court has made those adjustments, the actual dollar figure looks considerably different. And because of the way these judgments are typically funded, the actual cost to the corporation can well be of an order of magnitude lower than the "verdict amount".
rsovitzky wrote:I may have missed it, but Michael, did you ever express your opinion on this case?
I have read a newspaper article on the matter. My faith in newspaper articles is not high enough to waste the energy to make an opinion based on it. I do think enough information was missing from the article to make the judgment amount misleading; from there, I do not know whether or not the reporter accurately summarized the facts of the case since she no doubt did not sit through the trial.
MichaelSol wrote:Legal systems are the way of avoiding personal notions of "justice" -- duels and sabotage and honor killings and genocide and such -- and if people don't get their day in court over perceived wrongs, what's their alternative?
MichaelSol wrote: In socialist countries where the all-powerful state cannot be sued for its own negligence, the alternative usually results in broken lives, or passive sabotage, or outright revolution. Compared to those alternatives, the term "overly litigious" sounds almost delicately civilized. And that is always a good question: compared to what? Our legal system does, in fact, protect the small and powerless and, since there happens to be a lot of them in any society, this society does have a special burden because of the special acess it gives to the poor and the injured by virtue of equal access laws and the contingency fee system. And that doesn't mean every poor or injured person has a valid complaint, but that can only be determined after the system is accessed, not by closing the door to the mere raising of the allegation.
MichaelSol wrote:The "real" hardball litigation that people read about tends to be when a big corporation, sticking out its hairy chest, declares "we never settle." Well, that's when judges and juries can find no sympathy on damages for them, or when punitive damages are granted. And it's those same big companies, with highly paid public relations departments, who whine and cry that the system is unfair even as their CEO's take home 10,000 times the salary of the guy on the assembly line and as they publicly proclaim their highest rate of return in history.
MichaelSol wrote:The injured person, even if he wins the case, has no such public relations department to call the newspaper or otherwise tell you about why it was fair that he won his case. So, at the outset, the public knowledge of these cases is skewed, intentionally so, by very wealthy interests which can not only well afford to compensate those they injure, but can usually well afford to undertake safety measures that often their own safety departments urge that they would be well advised to do.And the fact that otherwise intelligent people allow the public information well to be poisoned without careful attention to the underlying facts results in the kind of world as posted above, if the uncritical and brainwashed 17 year olds were in charge: wishing upon other young people their ultimate deaths, because of a day's lark and misunderstanding about high voltage electrification.
Michael Sol wrote:On that, I do have a strong opinon: it is pathological to feel that way and when adult railfans can look to the fruits of their own uninformed attitudes and see "what is happening to the country" they can look squarely in the mirror as far as I am concerned and see exactly where the blame lies.
MichaelSol wrote:The U.S. system is generally one of comparative negligence. The system takes no pleasure in telling profoundly injured people "too bad, roll your wheelchair back out onto the street". Comparative negligence recognizes that there is a real world in which each party can be, in some fashion, negligent. In a perfect world, the boys would have been born smart and know all about electricity from the day they could walk. In a perfect world, the railroad would have camera monitors everywhere to protect their property and to be able to intercept trespassers, including kids, cows, horses ....It's not a perfect world and the system of comparative negligence recognizes that.
rsovitzky wrote: The system of comparative negligence does NOT recognize it's not a perfect world! On the contrary, it ignores the real world and tries to pretend it is perfect. So that something done in blatant error causing damage to self, needs to somehow be compensated for by some party with money. If there were no money, there'd be no case.
Your complaint, then, is that there may be money to compensate injured persons and that, ultimately, it is unfair that any injured person be compensated because that must mean that someone else has money to compensate them with.
It is an interesting view.
Your lecture on it doesn't inform me of much about the system, as much as it does about your understanding of it.
I deal with this every day, and I will reiterate my offer earlier: if you have any questions about how comparative negligence systems work, I would be glad to answer them.
rsovitzky wrote:I know comparative negligence theories quite well, actually.
Your posts don't show it. You need to ask somebody about it and then you can return with an informed opinion, rather than perpetuating completely misleading perceptions of this case and of how the law actually works.
As I stated earlier, in reprinting a bar association comment: "Generally, a defendant-landowner owes no duty of care to a trespassing adult except to refrain from willfully and wantonly harming him or her, unless the defendant-landowner's premises constitute a "place of danger"."
There are a long line of swimming pool cases to this effect, and we aren't going to accomplish anything here by rearguing 150 years of well-established law that railroads have been long considered a "place of danger" by their nature and do, in fact, as a matter of law, owe "a" duty of care to trespassers. If you have a swimming pool in your backyard, you have the identical duty and so, no, this isn't some weird bias you think somebody just dreamed up just to stick it to railroads.
rsovitzky wrote:The difference between you and me, then, is that you believe the law is right. I believe it is wrong.My opinion is already 'informed'.
The two trespassers disagreed with the law as well; and presumably felt their opinions "informed" enough to take the risk. That's the probem with the way kids think, and you are thinking every much like them.
And, you plainly blame "the law" for the discretionary decision of the jury regarding "the facts", thoroughly confusing one with the other, and eager to substitute your own opinion in the place of the people who actually heard the case and were charged with the responsibility for weighing the actual facts. That's not "informed". It's the opposite.
And this is the full circle to my original contention: people bring the most uninformed of opinions to these discussions, arguing with a supreme if equally misunderstood irony about their strongly held views of the "ignorance" of two railfans who got zapped while demonstrating, in the process, exactly the same kind of generic, uninformed ignorance they roundly condemn.
MichaelSol wrote:strongly held views of the "ignorance" of two railfans who got zapped
I'm unclear about why they would be considered "railfans". They were skateboarding at night and decided to climb on top of the car to look at the surrounding area from an elevated location.
JayPotter wrote: MichaelSol wrote:strongly held views of the "ignorance" of two railfans who got zappedI'm unclear about why they would be considered "railfans".
I'm unclear about why they would be considered "railfans".
I am intentionally referring to the quality equivalency of the thought processes of the two young men as they have resembled those appearing on this thread. Other than the relative lack of quality of their understanding and their utter lack of respect for the law, which is in fact equivalent exactly to statements uttered on this page, I have no idea what their feelings about railroads were, one way or the other.
Do these people lack common sense??? As stated (I don't know how many times) in this thread and in other threads about this story on other forums, they trespassed on railroad property, climbed on private property (the railcar) and got electrocuted. If that wire (the catenary) can power a train, would it not make sense that it could instantly terminate your existance? Granted, they should have probably gotten something to pay for their medical bills if they were extreme, but in the below article it is my understanding it is stated (second-to-last paragraph) that they're pretty much getting the equivalent of $155 grand a year for life. I may be wrong, correct me if this is the case.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/560608.html
Hey Judge Larry, UH, WHAT?
starwardude wrote: I'm suprised and upset that these two didn't die. If that wire (the catenary) can power a train, would it not make sense that it could instantly terminate your existance?
I'm suprised and upset that these two didn't die.
If that wire (the catenary) can power a train, would it not make sense that it could instantly terminate your existance?
That is what makes this an instance, under the law, of property that is "a place of danger". That places some burden on the property owner, not much, but some -- a minimum duty to protect or warn. The law presumes, based purely on common sense, that there are 17 year olds out there who don't necessarily have the wisdom of the ages yet, and, just like the poster earlier who doesn't like the law, don't like the law, including that of trespass.
And your description does beg the question that, of all the entities involved that had absolute knowledge that the situation was dangerous, wouldn't it have been the railroad/Amtrak?
If the article accurately recites the Judge's review of the jury verdict, he was asking why Amtrak in essence planted a ladder leading up to the catenary near a busy intersection for four days, left the catenary energized, had no warning signs posted as to the hazard, and didn't expect that teenagers under those circumstances will do what teenagers do under those circumstances.
People have tossed the phrase "common sense" around on this thread, but I think the Judge, and no doubt the Jury, were looking for even the most minimal compliance with the duty to warn, and found exactly none by the very entities that created the hazard and certainly, if anyone did, knew exactly what the hazards were.
It wouldn't have taken much for Amtrak to meet the duty to warn: a simple sign. It wasn't there. And that goes to the positive force of Negligence Law: saving a few nickels here or there under some budget goal is not worth a human life, and this case provides, if Amtrak or the railroad needs any further incentive during their safety meetings, a reminder that safety is, indeed, first, and should be.
MichaelSol wrote:That is what makes this an instance, under the law, of property that is "a place of danger". That places some burden on the property owner, not much, but some -- a minimum duty to protect or warn. The law presumes, based purely on common sense, that there are 17 year olds out there who don't necessarily have the wisdom of the ages yet, and, just like the poster earlier who doesn't like the law, don't like the law, including that of trespass. And your description does beg the question that, of all the entities involved that had absolute knowledge that the situation was dangerous, wouldn't it have been the railroad/Amtrak?
As usual Michael you have put your finger on the right spot. You also explained it better than everybody with his opinion. I admit I had this common opinion too, based on next to no facts. Still feel they may get a better deal than they deserve, they were trespassing after all.
A couple of questions then.
If the railroad(s) had put up the relevant warning signs as required of property owners by relevant law, by what factor, if any, could the $24m be reduced?
Would the admitting of trespassing have any influence on the $24m?
P.S. Love to hear about your Dutch ties.
Hypothetical:
A 17 y/o sees a boat at a dock with an outboard motor. It's tied to a dock and the motor is idling. So he climbs aboard, unties the rope and makes the boat move by applying throttle. At some point he decides he has had enough and jump overboard without adjusting the throttle and the propeller deeply lacerates his thigh as the boat continues past. As a result of this injury and the his lack of swimming ability he drowns. There were PFDs in the boat.
Should the owner have to post signs in his boat saying "PFD use is required", "Don't exit the boat at speed" and "Warning: Spinning propeller is dangerous"?
Again, not trying to be a jerk. I'm just curious.
I understand your point I believe. I would start with why an idling outboard motor was left unattended and go from there. It couldn't be much more irresponsible, according to police and insurance companies, than leaving the keys in the ignition of one's parked car, engine idling, while one tends to even hurried and minor business in a nearby mall.
I am all for a person accepting the consequences of one's actions. However, all overt behaviour, speaking as a psychologist, is contextual. We don't exist in a vacuum. We respond minute-by-minute to obstacles, threats, opportunities, windfalls, and even out of idle curiosity. My training Warrant Officer told me years ago that my troops would follow me only for the last reason. I don't remember if he winked. Also, just as we are discussing here about our various interpretations of custom, convention, and the Law, youth have their own version of what is right and wrong. They are curious, they'll push the envelope, they're programmed for discovery. If an entity leaves a potentially dangerous opportunity for them to discover, some of the blame should go to that entity...maybe...depending on how the jury or judge views the evidence. And, as a psychologist, let me assure you that if you deign to pee off the jury, woe to the person represented by you. Juries aren't above teaching lessons.
I have a distate for warning signs.
I was going to remain silent and read on this thread... but the Boat Scenario; well I have to call it theft boat, willful abandonment and probably a hazard to navigation along whatever else one can fit onto the charges at the 17 year old boat thief.
Back to my distate for signs... some of the cars I have driven are so overly decalled with bright orange or yellow warnings and "Do-nots" in US, Spanish and French languages and sometimes even other languages. Roll over risk, etc. Just being inside one of these vehicles is disturbing. Just being inside a car or airplane, ship or rowboat in a harbor means that you are going on a journey and sometimes you dont live to complete that journey... either because you made a mistake or several factors combine to have a incident or death/maim situation.
Railroads are dangerous. Always have been and always will be.
Bottom line, those two teens have no business being on railroad property and sadly they got what they deserved for putting themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. If they had to learn about electricity and how it can arc or jump many feet from one conductive object to a GROUND Object... sometimes that ground is YOU.
Wished they learned that fact in school, such as our education system is and apparent failing nuclear familial bonds that keep children out of harms way long enough to reach 18 years of old.
If the Law was properly applied to these young people they know not to go near railroad, know not to get near wires hanging in the sky and find another alternative places to get a better view.
I dont see these kids climbing a tree on the street corner next to a pole with wires and transformers hanging off it. No, they had to do it from a railcar that so happens to have electrical power above it.
You think these kids who may have lived or were raised in that area long enough to understand that there is danger on those tracks. Certianly ive been near the corridor as a child and you learn very quickly how fast and silent those trains are, when they are upon you is not the time to be regreeting not using that bridge or crosswalk nearby... those are usually shielded and festooned with signs showing cartoon people frying in wires and sparks indicating high voltage.
With that in mind, is it fair to lay neglect of a few missing signs on a railroad doorstep when such a railroad has thousands of miles of responsibility? The Union Pacific recently put up 12 NO TRESPASSING signs about 40 feet apart in my town on both sides of the double track main. Apparently there are people "Jay tracking" instead of using the carefully constructed sidewalks laid just for them on both of the crossings.
The article talks about how one had to endure the horror of watching someone's clothes be on fire. Ive been there and done that, the first problem is to put out the fire and then summon help... however the trucker in me says this:
Dummy! You should NEVER have allowed that wire to light you up on fire.
The best risk management is not to be placing yourself into that sitaution in the first place. Apparently at that age that is the last thing on the mind.
Tomes of Law in writing can never compenstate for acts brought on by ignorance or stupidity.
Falls Valley RR wrote: Bottom line, those two teens have no business being on railroad property and sadly they got what they deserved for putting themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Bottom line, those two teens have no business being on railroad property and sadly they got what they deserved for putting themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Do you really think that because they trespassed, they deserved what they got? Does that punishment fit the crime?
Falls Valley RR wrote: With that in mind, is it fair to lay neglect of a few missing signs on a railroad doorstep when such a railroad has thousands of miles of responsibility?
With that in mind, is it fair to lay neglect of a few missing signs on a railroad doorstep when such a railroad has thousands of miles of responsibility?
Of those thousands of miles of "responsibility" can the railroad then be "irresponsible" when and where it chooses? It would be an interesting argument in court: "sorry this guy got killed but we have a lot of warning signs up in the next state, so its not our fault."
The continuing arguments in favor of intermittent "neglect" or negligence being justified for experienced corporate enterprise, but not for 17 year olds, continues to confirm my contention that there is little substantive difference in the attitudes between the 17 year olds in the case and their critics ...
Let's say they deserved to be punished for thier trespassing. Was such punishment administered?
Never mind the suit for the money or the 24 clams. The law does not say that one should recieve such a great reward when injured during the course of trespassing or other crime.
That is why I say they got what they deserved. If a home invader brekas into my house at night and goes after family and I shoot this person dead... well he or she got what they deserved. One or more of us will not live to see sunrise because a crime of home invasion is being committed. Hopefully it's the perp.
If I dont get him square in the sights, most certainly the courts will. If the perp says to the court that I ought to be made to pay him a reward of 24 clams for being injured due to my bad markmanship why I should be thinking how broken our justice system would be.
If they dont remember the punishment for trespassing, then they will be reminded by thier own injuries and the memories. That will be a great deterrent against future violation of the trespassing rule.
If they still trespass in the future and climb onto another railcar to get a view of the mountain of money they recieved and fried... well hopefully such dimwits will be removed from our breeding pool.
No. What is done, is done. Let the Courts sort it out. That is why we have them in our great Nation.
Annnddddd......BACK to the action. Sorry, for being so sparse in responding. Have to put in another honest day's work, like most of you! <wink>.
So, just catching up - pretty much everybody on this thread but the attorney and the professor think this award was insane, then? And the fact that it also represented a major payday for the legal profession and the apparatus that props it up is irrelevant? And that it sets a precedent that will benefit same in future?
Your honor I object!
Overruled! <slams gavel>
Ah, well.
Falls Valley RR wrote: That is why I say they got what they deserved. If a home invader brekas into my house at night and goes after family and I shoot this person dead... well he or she got what they deserved. One or more of us will not live to see sunrise because a crime of home invasion is being committed. Hopefully it's the perp.
There is no point in suggesting that there is a substantive difference between a misdemeanor crime against property and a felony assault against people, and compelling reasons for that difference.
But, the posts on this thread aren't about "reason" or "common sense" -- it's about railfans thinking and talking exactly like the 17 year old kids they criticize -- offering up a bunch of juvenile baloney that ultimately has nothing to do with the law or its application, facts or their relevancy, or common sense and the fact that it has been taken hostage.
This idea, repeated on this thread, that somehow these two kids "deserved" to be killed, or fried, or scarred for life, is simply beyond my comprehension. This crap isn't just repugnant. There is something psychologically wrong with people with these attitudes. Those two boys didn't climb up on that car to hurt anybody, to want someone dead, to wish evil to anyone, or to "perpetrate" anything, but the comments on this thread point to people who do wish those things on people, and I think it is disgusting. There is a point at which the reflexive, uninformed, obsessive "need" by railfans to defend the poor railroad company morphs into something far more illuminating, and horrifying, than merely critiquing a jury doing its job.
Get a life. Wishing death on two kids isn't it.
Angus99 wrote: So, just catching up - pretty much everybody on this thread but the attorney and the professor think this award was insane, then? And the fact that it also represented a major payday for the legal profession and the apparatus that props it up is irrelevant? And that it sets a precedent that will benefit same in future?
Let's say that the 12 people on the jury were just like you.
That would explain it, wouldn't it?
If I was on that jury, I would argue against monetary awards for certain.
Oh well, let them have the money and teach other potential trespassers how to work the system for thier own payouts as well.
Best I drop out of this thread, Ive said enough for one day.
MichaelSol wrote: There is a point at which the reflexive, uninformed, obsessive "need" by railfans to defend the poor railroad company morphs into something far more illuminating, and horrifying, than merely critiquing a jury doing its job.
There is a point at which the reflexive, uninformed, obsessive "need" by railfans to defend the poor railroad company morphs into something far more illuminating, and horrifying, than merely critiquing a jury doing its job.
I have seen this repeatedly on this forum. It needs to be explored.
MichaelSol wrote: This idea, repeated on this thread, that somehow these two kids "deserved" to be killed, or fried, or scarred for life, is simply beyond my comprehension. This crap isn't just repugnant. There is something psychologically wrong with people with these attitudes. Those two boys didn't climb up on that car to hurt anybody, to want someone dead, to wish evil to anyone, or to "perpetrate" anything, but the comments on this thread point to people who do wish those things on people, and I think it is disgusting. There is a point at which the reflexive, uninformed, obsessive "need" by railfans to defend the poor railroad company morphs into something far more illuminating, and horrifying, than merely critiquing a jury doing its job.Get a life. Wishing death on two kids isn't it.
Succinctly expressed!
FWIW, my two cents worth of observation: These kids did not 'deserve' (whatever that means in this case) to be compensated so greatly for their crime of trespassing. However, they also did not 'deserve' to be permanently scarred and disabled for mere trespassing. The one kid had burns on 75% of his body!! Can you even begin to imagine how much pain he suffered? Heck, I splashed some sulphur from a fusee on my arm once, and I thought my entire arm was on fire, it hurt so much (granted it was a big splotch).
Now, if they had been found with cable cutters trying to steal the power lines, or found with cinder blocks and rope, or perhaps even with guns, then perhaps a good frying would be indicative of Karma being proactive.
No, Michael, I don't think that is really what most of the people here are posting. I think, and of course, I've been wrong once or twice in my lifetime, that most people understand that if you play with fire, even if you don't know it, you are likely to get burned. The fact remains that these kids were trespassing, had no training in 'playing' around electricity, and were electrocuted because of their lack of knowledge in the hazards that where present.
Most people do not have the ability to identify what is dangerous and what isn't when dealing with electricity. If you were to drive up to a utility substation, the power company does not place signs on all of the various components in the substation that are dangerous - they place signs along the fence that read 'No Trespassing'. If you trespass into that substation, you are doing so at YOUR OWN RISK. Another key note of interest - large metal signs identifying the hazards of electricity and high voltage bushings tend to not work well together.
Nobody is wishing death on these two kids, but I must say I'm surprised that they are alive. The human body is basically has the resistance of a copper wire at 12KV, and by rights they should both be dead. Given the medical conditions they will have to deal with the rest of their lives, they may wish they were. What makes me angry is that they get a 24 million dollar payday for their stupidity. Again, I know electricians who know far more about electricity get a 0$ payout for a mistake that hurt them big time. But, since they made that one mistake during a 14 hour work day, it is their fault and they can't recoup any costs. These kids try to see the city from on top of a boxcar while breaking the law get nailed and now they are making 150G a year for the rest of their lives for doing nothing more than being completely stupid. How is that fair?
Another interesting note is the legal ramifications of all this. Sure it was a great sob story about all the healing and pain that the kid had to endure (I have no sympathy for this, none. I don't feel bad at all about that, either. Your choice, your payment). So what does this legal decision mean for companies at large and railroads in particular?
Should all companies now be required to provide warning signs on items on their property to indicate the hazards present to people that are only trespassing? Would this have prevented the injury of those two kids? Or at least absolved the railroad of liability?
If anyone's answer is yes, have you ever worked in an industrial environment at all during your lifetime, or do read about them in history books?
I don't believe that a company should have to put warning signs on their own property, on the condition that it is adequetely protected from trespassers. (This, of course, opens up a whole new can of worms, but what in this thread doesn't?)
I don't feel these kids got what they deserved, either in physical suffering or monetary compensation. They should have realized that what they were doing was stupid and backed off, but I don't feel comfortable saying that enduring a lifetime of disability is due justice. I merely say that limited liability should be assigned to others around them, and SOME liability to themselves!
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/
solzrules wrote:If anyone's answer is yes, have you ever worked in an industrial environment at all during your lifetime, or do read about them in history books?
Does an Electrified Railroad count? Does working in Government R&D with Honeywell's Government Ordinance Division and the Air Force Chemical Weapons Laboratory count?
You bet warning signs are posted, and they had better be. All over the place. I have reposted a restatement summary of the law on that point twice now on this thread. Please read it. The lack of signs may have made the difference, entirely, in this case, because there is, in fact, by law a mandatory duty to meet a minimum standard of either notice of the hazard or protection from it.
The Judge seemed to fasten on that salient point -- that Amtrak did neither. And this distinguishes the case from ordinary comparative negligence: here, the law imposes a duty with regard to trespassers, and in this instance a fairly minimal one. As minimal as it was, Amtrak breached the duty according to the jury and the judge.
You can argue all day about this or that, but the law in fact recognizes that this is still a "society" with interaction between entities at all levels, including pets, babies, small kids, teenagers, alzheimer's patients. The law is straightforward: if you are going to maintain a hazard that can inflict injury to the innocent trespasser, then you need to warn or protect. If you do, you have met that legal duty. If you don't, and there is an injury, then because the law is well-established there is no surprise at the finding of liability. And Amtrak probably has at least one person who understands that.
The teenagers had no such advice, education or training. Or warning. They're teenagers. Not only would a simple warning sign possibly have avoided the liability, it might have averted the injury.
And that would have cost, what, $5?
MichaelSol wrote:innocent trespasser
Sorry, what?
solzrules wrote: So what does this legal decision mean for companies at large and railroads in particular? Should all companies now be required to provide warning signs on items on their property to indicate the hazards present to people that are only trespassing? Would this have prevented the injury of those two kids? Or at least absolved the railroad of liability?
And this is why I repeatedly bring up the "ignorance" factor in this discussions and that the accusations of ignorance on the part of these two kids is exactly the same kind of ignorance displayed here repeatedly. This is old law. This case did nothing to extend it or restrict it. In the "real world" corporations already know this stuff. This case is not precedent. The precedent was set decades ago as a fundamental safety rule for society: operate a known hazard, and if you don't warn or protect, you will be liable for resulting injuries.
There is nothing unreasonable for a society to impose that duty. Among other things, it is designed to protect the corporation.
It is patently unreasonable to propose that two kids should be killed because a corporation breached that duty.
trainboyH16-44 wrote: MichaelSol wrote:innocent trespasserSorry, what?
"Some statutes consider a trespass criminal only if the defendant has an unlawful purpose in entering or remaining in the place where he has no right to be. Statutes in some states specify that a trespass is not criminal until after a warning, either spoken or by posted signs, has been given to the trespasser." Pennsylvania is one of these states.
The newspaper article suggests that there was no notice of any kind. There was no evidence of criminal intent as defined by statute. Under Pennsylvania law, then, without a posted notice, and without a criminal intent, these kids committed no crime.
And yes, a term of art for non-criminal trespass is "innocent trespass". What would you call it? Any other questions?
MichaelSol wrote: solzrules wrote: So what does this legal decision mean for companies at large and railroads in particular? Should all companies now be required to provide warning signs on items on their property to indicate the hazards present to people that are only trespassing? Would this have prevented the injury of those two kids? Or at least absolved the railroad of liability? And this is why I repeatedly bring up the "ignorance" factor in this discussions and that the accusations of ignorance on the part of these two kids is exactly the same kind of ignorance displayed here repeatedly. This is old law. This case did nothing to extend it or restrict it. In the "real world" corporations already know this stuff. This case is not precedent. The precedent was set decades ago as a fundamental safety rule for society: operate a known hazard, and if you don't warn or protect, you will be liable for resulting injuries.There is nothing unreasonable for a society to impose that duty. Among other things, it is designed to protect the corporation.It is patently unreasonable to propose that two kids should be killed because a corporation breached that duty.
It has been a while since my first year property course, or studying for the bar. But, isn't the common law duty for a tresspasser much more limited than that? To my knowledge, absent an attractive nuisance, the common law duty owed to a tresspasser is to refrain from wantonly or intentionally injuring him.
I think even for an invitee, the liability would be questionable here.Your analysis persumes a duty. If the legal standard is "people shouldn't have to die" there is going to be a lot of liability out there. Is it really all that foreseeable that people will climb on the top of box cars to touch wires?
If I didn't think you had any idea what you were talking about, I wouldn't take the time to disagree with you . . . Also, I appear to be in a 1-2 dissent from you and the judge. I just don't understand how the common law duty is even close to satisfied here.
Gabe
gabe wrote:It has been a while since my first year property course, or studying for the bar. But, isn't the common law duty for a tresspasser much more limited than that? To my knowledge, absent an attractive nuisance, the common law duty owed to a tresspasser is to refrain from wantonly or intentionally injuring him. ...Your analysis persumes a duty. If the legal standard is "people shouldn't have to die" there is going to be a lot of liability out there. Is it really all that foreseeable that people will climb on the top of box cars to touch wires?
...Your analysis persumes a duty. If the legal standard is "people shouldn't have to die" there is going to be a lot of liability out there. Is it really all that foreseeable that people will climb on the top of box cars to touch wires?
Well, if you put a ladder up to the wire near a busy intersection and left it there for four days ...
The hornbook law on this one is pretty clear:
"Generally, a defendant-landowner owes no duty of care to a trespassing adult except to refrain from willfully and wantonly harming him or her, unless the defendant-landowner's premises constitute a "place of danger"."
I see this one on so many bar association websites, I almost suspect it is taken verbatim from the Restatement of Torts.
In this instance, I can see a bit of the Federal Judge's exasperation in the quoted remarks: here is a corporation with all the resources in the world to know what its duties are, and it failed at all of them. Here's two kids who don't have all the resources in the world to know what the dangers are.
Who loses with that stacked deck?
And so, you'll have to forgive my ignorance when it comes to the law - I'm sure you've established many moons ago that I am no lawyer - I'll bring up the example of the utility substation. It is posted 'No Trespassing'. It is also posted 'High Voltage'. These are posted on the barbed wire fence that surrounds the substation. Now, the fence is not energized with high voltage, but certain components within the substation are. Does this mean that the utility is liable if kids get into the substation and come into contact with high voltage components that are not labeled properly?
Furthermore, if you have any experience in industrial environments, you surely must recognize that the NFPA has a standardized color coding system that identifies chemicals and gases and so on that are considered dangerous. Do these placards absolve the company of liability even though the standard 'innocent' trespasser has no idea what they mean?
solzrules wrote: And so, you'll have to forgive my ignorance when it comes to the law - I'm sure you've established many moons ago that I am no lawyer - I'll bring up the example of the utility substation. It is posted 'No Trespassing'. It is also posted 'High Voltage'. These are posted on the barbed wire fence that surrounds the substation. Now, the fence is not energized with high voltage, but certain components within the substation are. Does this mean that the utility is liable if kids get into the substation and come into contact with high voltage components that are not labeled properly?
I do know that a similar situation caused quite an uproar in France, but you would have to cite the case to me in the United States where utilities were held liable after providing those kind of warnings and protection. I am not aware of one. That's the whole point of the law.
Yes, as a former chemical engineer, I do have "some" familiarity with the system. It is designed for Hazmat control, not the general public.
gabe wrote:To my knowledge, absent an attractive nuisance, the common law duty owed to a tresspasser is to refrain from wantonly or intentionally injuring him.
One of the issues was whether, under Pennylvania law, the doctrine of "attractive nuisance" could be applied to people as old as 17. Based, I believe, on evidence of brain development as a function of age, the court ruled that it was applicable and that the liability standard normally applicable to tresspassers wasn't applicable.
solzrules wrote:I'll bring up the example of the utility substation. It is posted 'No Trespassing'. It is also posted 'High Voltage'. These are posted on the barbed wire fence that surrounds the substation. Now, the fence is not energized with high voltage, but certain components within the substation are. Does this mean that the utility is liable if kids get into the substation and come into contact with high voltage components that are not labeled properly?
The closest that I can come to the substation scenario is a 40-foot-high transmission tower supporting 46,000-volt lines. The tower was posted with signs saying "Danger, High Voltage, Keep Off". After drinking several beers, an 18-year-old decided to climb the tower to get an elevated view of the area. When he got close to the top, he received a shock and was seriously injured when he fell to the ground. He sued the power company; the case was tried; and the power company lost. It then appealed and won. However -- and this is what's significant in relation to the case being discussed here -- one of the primary reasons that it won on appeal was that the injured trespasser was legally an adult. If he hadn't been as old as he was, the court would probably have ruled against the power company under the theory that, since high-voltage electricity is a dangerous condition, whoever is responsible for that condition (i.e. the power company) has an obligation to prevent children from being injured by it if it knows, or should know, that children frequent the area in which the dangerous condition is located. That reasoning helps to explain why the age of the trespassers in the catenary case was significant. One of the primary issues in that case was the extent to which -- and this is my phrasing, not the court's -- a 17-year-old thinks, in relation to risks, more like a child or more like an adult.
selector wrote:I wonder how many jury members commence their duties with their minds already made up. Whoa! Now that's scary!
I have always gone by first impressions and they almost never fail me. But I look at the big picture and I am open to changing my first impression or at least adjusting it somewhat. I look at body language, facial expressions and overall demeanor and I listen very carefully to what they say and how they say it.
I think the average jury takes their responsibilities very seriously and also do a lot of the above. And whether I am on a jury or in the business world, my first impression is usually proven out by the facts. Which would make it seem that I have my mind made up to begin with - which is not true.
I think that is why we have these unseemly verdicts occasionally. Maybe the lawyers didn't or did present the case in the right manner. (OJ comes to mind - where lousy lawyers for the plaintiffs were on public display daily!)
The jury panel in this case possibly DID its job by very carefully examining the evidence and listening closely to the lawyers. The law constantly reminds them to be impartial and I think most of them work very hard at doing so.
I think more of the problem rests with the people in the judicial system that can and will twist it to their own liking, some judges that shouldn't even practice law let alone judge and politicians that write and pass foolish legislation - not the juries that are preached at daily to be impartial and consider all the facts.
....Especially true in the OJ case.
Quentin
You know, like:
Jumbo shrimp.
Military Intelligence.
Act naturally.
Computer security.
Peace officer.
Christian Scientist.
Holy War.
Loosely packed.
Job security.
Instant classic.
Rap music.
Unbiased opinion.
and so on.....
Mr. Sol's mulitple postings demonstrate in part why the legal profession is held in such low esteem in this country. An apparent inability to be concise and an often condescending attitude has convinced many people who are not lawyers that an attorney attempts to obfuscate and otherwise hide the facts in order to win his case, whether justice is done is immaterial.
Egregious settlements such as the one that opened this thread and class-action settlements in which the attorneys are paid more than the individual members of the class also contribute to the low esteem in which lawyers are held. Many people outside the profession believe that some class-action suits are filed primarily to generate income for the law firm, not seek justice. It may not be correct but it is the perception.
MichaelSol wrote:I do know that a similar situation caused quite an uproar in France, but you would have to cite the case to me in the United States where utilities were held liable after providing those kind of warnings and protection. I am not aware of one. That's the whole point of the law.
I don't think it is a good analogy. Those French young men were fleeing from French riot police during the riots in Paris last year. I believe they (the riot police) have quite a reputation. The young men climbed the wrong fence and ended up dead inside a substation. The uproar stemmed more from the fact that they were descendants of North African immigrants who generally feel that they are discriminated against by the original (white) French population. Or they may have been illegal immigrants. Still, you do not want someone dead for such reasons as trespassing or even fleeing the police.
I wonder if somebody has seen pictures of the place were the accident in the Pennsylvania case happened? Were there sufficient warning signs? Did the railroad know that maybe someone had stolen the signs and it took a chance at not replacing them immediately? Probably the case depends on these kind of questions.
I get the feeling that the jury thought more along the lines of the earlier mentioned McDonalds case.
And a final thought. Here in the western world we get older and older each year. Average old age for a male in the Netherlands is something like 75 years these days and still climbing. People that are now teenagers may well live to an average old age of 90. Surely that means that a disability allowance set by the court must take that into account.
zardoz wrote: trainboyH16-44 wrote: MichaelSol wrote:innocent trespasserSorry, what? You know, like:Jumbo shrimp.
An "innocent" (or "technical") trespass is when people believe that they have a right to be where they are but actually don't have that right. The only electricity scenario with which I'm familiar is one in which a manufacturing-company electrician was assigned to a job at one of his company's substations and went, mistakenly, to a power company substation. He was injured there because he was unfamiliar with the higher voltages present at that substation. A primary reason that he didn't realize he was trespassing at the substation was that there were no indications that the power company owned it. This was because the power company had intentionally not put ownership markings on the substation because--for reasons that are unclear to me--it did not want trespassers to be able to identify it as the ower of the property. So the visiting electrician was "technically" a trespasser; however he was "innocent" in that he believed that he was not trespassing.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:Mr. Sol's mulitple postings demonstrate in part why the legal profession is held in such low esteem in this country. An apparent inability to be concise and an often condescending attitude has convinced many people who are not lawyers that an attorney attempts to obfuscate and otherwise hide the facts in order to win his case, whether justice is done is immaterial.Egregious settlements such as the one that opened this thread and class-action settlements in which the attorneys are paid more than the individual members of the class also contribute to the low esteem in which lawyers are held. Many people outside the profession believe that some class-action suits are filed primarily to generate income for the law firm, not seek justice. It may not be correct but it is the perception.
After wading through 140 posts on this topic:
First, I write and report for a living. You may have seen my byline in Trains now and then. I've also served as a juror and as a court witness several times. I fully agree that AT TIMES precise and concise writing/speaking is preferable to long, drawn out exposition. However, carried to an extreme, we end up with the "sound bite" mentality that leaves egregious amounts of context out of the picture--much like the pathetic nature of television news today, and one half-step above the shouting mobs of "The Jerry Springer Show". As long and occasionally tiresome as MichaelSol's soliloquies may be at times, the totality of a clearly explained position/situation/etc. is far preferable to the short-tempered, reactionary "they deserve to fry" mentality that permeats much of what others have written. The entirity of such a situation or educated opinion is never as brazenly obvious as many of the critics here would like to think.
Furthermore, I would argue that the reactionary tone exhibited by many of the people on this thread is almost exactly the same kind that the "big, bad railroad corporation" is accused of having or perceived to have with regards to this situation. I certainly don't support the award the two "victims" got and await to see what they actually end up with after appeals, but if it was in part a reaction to an obstinate, arrogant mindset or atmosphere promoted by either the railroads' witnesses/lawyers or the corporation(s) itself in this particular court case.......... well, can we say "monkey see, monkey do"?
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: Mr. Sol's mulitple postings demonstrate in part why the legal profession is held in such low esteem in this country. An apparent inability to be concise ...
Mr. Sol's mulitple postings demonstrate in part why the legal profession is held in such low esteem in this country. An apparent inability to be concise ...
Michael is the last person who should be accused of being imprecise. When he used the term "innocent trespasser" in post #9, page #7, I knew it would be immediately pounced upon as an example of inconsistency. Then when it was, I thought Michael gave a very clear explanation of why the term is true and accurate.
Just wait 10 years im sure these kids will kill themselfs with there lawsuit money, it happens to every idiot who has ever won money in a Lawsuit or the Lottery
I got this link from somewhere... was it here? (I'm following this discusion on 3 seperate forums)
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06D0404P.pdf
Read the 3rd page.
Mookie wrote: I think the average jury takes their responsibilities very seriously and also do a lot of the above. And whether I am on a jury or in the business world, my first impression is usually proven out by the facts. Which would make it seem that I have my mind made up to begin with - which is not true. ...The jury panel in this case possibly DID its job by very carefully examining the evidence and listening closely to the lawyers. The law constantly reminds them to be impartial and I think most of them work very hard at doing so.
...
And that gets to the heart of this thread. These weren't lawyers, this wasn't the judge, and it wasn't a bunch of lobbyists. These were 12 people who weren't any of those things -- they were teachers, firemen, shopkeepers, millworkers -- the kind of people who do, indeed, bring common sense to the system.
They were the ones who heard the evidence and made this determination.
These threads typically devolve into attacks on lawyers, by people who in general just don't know much about any of it, but for whom they represent a convenient totem for their personal frustrations and anger in life. I do think its psychological -- the same people who become positively agitated when they hear about a large jury verdict -- and know nothing about the case otherwise -- usually move their anger directly from the verdict to "the lawyers" as though the corporations don't hire the best, and most often, violate the rules of professional conduct in destroying evidence, being unresponsive in discovery, and even tainting jury pools.
It's ignorance, pure and simple. It is like operating a train: if you havn't done it, you probably don't know enough to tell anybody about how its done. Doesn't stop anyone here, though, and that's the kind of uninformed commentary that young railfans come to believe is normal and acceptable, and represents some kind of "adulthood".
I have generally been impressed with the quality of civil case juries I have seen. People really take that civic duty seriously. I'm glad your experience on a jury was a good one.
After seven or more pages, I don't think we're going to make any headway now. It has mostly all been said, so let's get on with other topics.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.