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
Rustyrex wrote: Quote "The young men's attorney, Joseph F. Roda, of Lancaster, explained after the verdict that the case wasn't about the teenagers' admitted trespassing, but was about the railroad knowing there was a hidden high voltage hazard on the property."
Quote "The young men's attorney, Joseph F. Roda, of Lancaster, explained after the verdict that the case wasn't about the teenagers' admitted trespassing, but was about the railroad knowing there was a hidden high voltage hazard on the property."
HIDDEN? last time I saw a high voltage line, it didnt seem to hidden to me. To put up danger high voltage signs everywhere is like the caution sign on a lawn mower to not put your foot under the lawn mower deck. I've done stupid things in my life, but I was always punished for them, maybe I should sue my parents for not giving me toys when I was bad.
zugmann wrote:So if you were driving drunk and crashed into a utility pole - would you support suing the utility company for having the audacity to place that pole there??
It may seem like anyone who trespasses deservers whatever they get, but it is not that simple. If it were, nobody would have to worry about liability hazards on their property.
And people do indeed get sued for placing solid obstacles on their own private property that were subsequently struck by drunk drivers. There are laws in some states where authorities can enter your private property and remove such obstacles or roadway departure hazards as they are called.
marcimmeker wrote: Rustyrex wrote: Quote "The young men's attorney, Joseph F. Roda, of Lancaster, explained after the verdict that the case wasn't about the teenagers' admitted trespassing, but was about the railroad knowing there was a hidden high voltage hazard on the property."Yea, right, the railroad didn't know there was a hidden high voltage hazard on the property....greetings,Marc Immeker
Yea, right, the railroad didn't know there was a hidden high voltage hazard on the property....
greetings,
Marc Immeker
And your point is...........?
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
CLICK HERE FOR THE CSX DIXIE LINE BLOG
CTValleyRR wrote: 5) "The verdict was against the great weight of the defendants' [the railroads'] bluster," Stengel wrote. "It was not against the great weight of the evidence." Right.
5) "The verdict was against the great weight of the defendants' [the railroads'] bluster," Stengel wrote. "It was not against the great weight of the evidence." Right.
I'm no legal beagle, but when I read that statement from the judge (supposedly) presiding over the case, I about fell out of my chair. Isn't it the job of the judge to make sure the jury considers the evidence and not emotions??? That comment alone should make good grist in an appeal.
Would this case have made it to trial if they had climbed a power pole in an industrial park?
Who is responsible for the upbringing of these youth? Teaching them right from wrong? If they're too old to hold that party responsible then they (the "kids") should be held responsible. Unless the RR CO. invited/told them to climb on the cars, the kids are the ones who screwed up.
I support holding the driver of the car responsible unless it's a minor and then you can bring the parents into the equation.
Dan
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
zugmann wrote: these weren't 8 yr old kids. They were 17. I'm sorry, but when I was 17, I didn't climb on stuff right under wires. Just more loss of personal responsibility.
these weren't 8 yr old kids. They were 17. I'm sorry, but when I was 17, I didn't climb on stuff right under wires.
Just more loss of personal responsibility.
Since when do 17 year olds exhibit good judgement and common sense?
When I was 17, I didn't climb on stuff right under wires.... but that's probably because I didn't live near any.
I did, however, drink to the point where I could barely stand (yes, at 17), then get in my parents car and speed to the next party. That's INFINITELY dumber than than anything they did.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
The one guy that was zapped was in the U.S. Army.. so he wasn't hurt that bad (or that permanently).
I don't think they should turn up the juice int he wires... that would toast the toasters...
Im pretty firm in my conviction that they were on top of a railcar, unfortunately for them there was wire up there. And they fried for it.
I cannot stand the thought of the railroad being slapped on the wrist and forced to hand over 24 million for nothing.
I say this.... put those two to work in thier local area to present school presentations to grade 6 and under as living examples of the dangers of trespassing onto railroad property.
Have them do one per week, per school.
That way they can work for the railroad in a positive manner and hopefully save it again from another idiot climbing up onto those railcars and getting fried again.
Forget the 24 clams, hand them what they need to get around, a minivan, wheel chair etc... and reasonable consideration for thier disabilities. Then send them out to thier new livelihood working for the railroad.
who knows? they might actually get good at it and go on to productive lives.
By the way, crank up the juice on those wires so they crackle and hum with a potential threat of death as to stike fear into hearts of other little boys.
So, did anybody read past the first two paragraphs of the story?
Now, I'm not defending the two yutzes by any means. Personally, I think you do something like this, and you deserve to spend the rest of your life partially disabled with burns over 75% of your body. That should give you a lot of time to reflect upon your own lack of common sense and judgement (although 17 year olds are NOT reknowned for either).
However, how such a thing could have happened -- the verdict, that is, not the incident -- is really rather obvious.
Consider (and I have not seen or read the decision):
1) While the average non-railfan does know that trains on some lines are powered by electricity, they don't generally know how much. An informal survey of my wife and 12 year old came up with 1000 volts and 300 volts, respectively.
2) The average non-railfan may not actually be aware of whether a line is active or not, and whether any catenaries are live, especially if he doesn't live in the area.
3) In the judges words, "The defendants [Amtrak and Norfolk Southern] really presented no evidence."
4) 'During the trial, Stengel wrote, the railroad companies' attorneys "demeaned" the two young men "for their lack of intelligence, judgment and common sense in choosing to climb to the top of the boxcar." ' Good idea, that! I'm sure that didn't **** off anyone on the jury.
5) "The verdict was against the great weight of the defendants' [the railroads'] bluster," Stengel wrote. "It was not against the great weight of the evidence." Right. You have a 17 year old burned and disabled plaintiff sitting in the courtroom. That's already a huge sympathy vote from any juror who has children, or even knows people who do.
So, although I've only seen the judge's words and the reporters version of events, it sounds to me like the railroads' legal team handled the case badly, probably proceeding from the assumption that everyone would think that "the stupid shall be punished" and that he / they didn't have to work too hard. If I were the president of Norfolk Southern, my legal team would be looking for work today.
Unfortunately, an appeal based on the defendants not liking the verdict is unlikely. They would have to show that the verdict violated some precedent or that due process was not followed. Well, we can hope that the appelate court will hear the case, and that the defendants show up with competent representation.
trainfan1221 wrote:Lets hope a different court turns the tables on this one, and investigates how such a stupid decision could have been made.
This is my take on this case. It's five years old already and not a penny has been paid. These trespassers won't see any money either, unless and until a superior court agrees. That may be another five years and it may be never.
Many a big money case has been overturned on appeal on the basis of assumption of risk. So stay cool.
It's possible the justice system shorted on all of that jiuce flowing to the trespassers.
They got fried so be it. They should not get a penny, instead should be billed for it all.
oh for the love of....
this is no different than idiotic motorists suing the railroad when a train smashes their car at a crossing because they tried to beat it.
both events can seriously injure or even kill you. and it's always YOUR FAULT!
What does this judge expect amtrak or NS to do? line the whole freaking wire with warning signs?!?
Your friendly neighborhood CNW fan.
TPWRY wrote:this is why i say the US court system is SCREWED UP c'mon the teenagers were at fault so you penalize the INNOCENT PARTY
Those kids don't deserve a nickel. Had they not committed a crime (trespassing) then these injuries wouldn't have happened. That judge should be disbarred. Thanks for spitting on the face of the country.
i wounder if the judge would feel differntly if someone was tresspassing on his propory and got hurt and then they sued him for a 24 million dollor judgment....
csx engineer
Rustyrex wrote: Quote "The young men's attorney, Joseph F. Roda, of Lancaster, explained after the verdict that the case wasn't about the teenagers' admitted trespassing, but was about the railroad knowing there was a hidden high voltage hazard on the property."So the railroad had something on THEIR private property that could be dangerous to a non employee trespasser, that the teens admitted to tresspassing on???? What is wrong with this case.
So the railroad had something on THEIR private property that could be dangerous to a non employee trespasser, that the teens admitted to tresspassing on???? What is wrong with this case.
Are the power lines invisable?
An "expensive model collector"
Just because someone is a judge doesn't automatically mean that they have one ounce of 'common' sense. And juries are usually made up of people not smart enough to figure out how to get out of jury duty.
From the article: "Jurors determined Norfolk Southern and Amtrak could have prevented the accident by placing warning signs alerting people to the electrified catenary wires, which power locomotives, Roda said." I wonder how close the signs would have to be to each other for these moron jurors to feel that "adequate protection" has been provided. And of course this assumes that the potential victim can read whichever language the sign is written.
But what would you expect from a "justce" system that would have a homeowner responsible for injuries suffered by someone burglarizing their house?
So there you have it. A sad day, indeed. I imagine Lady Justice is spinning in her grave.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.