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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 ...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.