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)
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.
Very good point.
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.
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.
I'm going to take the recent advice of a forum moderator: state your opinion and move on.
Wayne
Modeling HO Freelance Logging Railroad.
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.
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?
I think I had all my questions answered.
Thank you!
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Have fun with your trains
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
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.
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.
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.
-Crandell
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?
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.
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: 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".
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".
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.
Michael,
Dan
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...
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.
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?
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?
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.
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 still trying to get some solid conversation out of this - so.....
This is what mystifies me the most.
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...
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...
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 ...
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.