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.
-Crandell
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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"?
zardoz wrote: trainboyH16-44 wrote: MichaelSol wrote:innocent trespasserSorry, what? You know, like:Jumbo shrimp.
trainboyH16-44 wrote: MichaelSol wrote:innocent trespasserSorry, what?
MichaelSol wrote:innocent trespasser
Sorry, 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.
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.
greetings,
Marc Immeker
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.....
....Especially true in the OJ case.
Quentin
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 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!)
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.
Mook
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
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.
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: 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?
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.
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?
Yes, as a former chemical engineer, I do have "some" familiarity with the system. It is designed for Hazmat control, not the general public.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Michael,
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
"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?
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?
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!
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.