henry6 wrote: US Yanks do have a leagal system. Flawed? That may be putting it mildly. Expensive, frustrating , convoluted, mystifying, lengthy, irrational, are just some of the other adjectives which can be applied.But hey, this blonde proves what they say about blondes. Pretty, blonde, crying, stupid. But the railroad is just as stupid mind you. Despite the no tresspassing signs, despite the fence, despite Operation Livesaver, despite being private property, despite her having IPOD earphones on while jogging, despite common sense (Oh, excuse me, she's blonde, that doesn't count), the railroad did not put up a brick wall 12 feet high nor provide escort services (sort of like playground monitors) on and off the property. Now that's being stupid by our legal standards!And yes, I also bemoan the fact that the mental damage to the train crew is not even mentioned as whoever was in the cab of that locomotive is just as much a victim, if not moreso, than the pretty, crying, blonde lady. The only smart one's here are the lawyers as they stand to make a fortune.
US Yanks do have a leagal system. Flawed? That may be putting it mildly. Expensive, frustrating , convoluted, mystifying, lengthy, irrational, are just some of the other adjectives which can be applied.
But hey, this blonde proves what they say about blondes. Pretty, blonde, crying, stupid. But the railroad is just as stupid mind you. Despite the no tresspassing signs, despite the fence, despite Operation Livesaver, despite being private property, despite her having IPOD earphones on while jogging, despite common sense (Oh, excuse me, she's blonde, that doesn't count), the railroad did not put up a brick wall 12 feet high nor provide escort services (sort of like playground monitors) on and off the property. Now that's being stupid by our legal standards!
And yes, I also bemoan the fact that the mental damage to the train crew is not even mentioned as whoever was in the cab of that locomotive is just as much a victim, if not moreso, than the pretty, crying, blonde lady. The only smart one's here are the lawyers as they stand to make a fortune.
YES! - Our legal (and political) systems are so screwed up in the country and I bet you could find an ambulance chasing attorney to sue someone just because they exist and are breathing on the planet for some dumb charge. Its awful to read about all these stupid idiots across the country that trespass or walk, drive, ride, etc. into or across the path of an oncoming train but they shouldnt be able to sue for their stupidity...especially those that drive around the gates as most of them get what they deserve for being so stupid.
Could someone send the thread to the TV Station so the station managers asst cld see?
My regrets to the lady, I am unsure how to phrase this but here goes.
1. I can only say I would question the Attorney representing her about not talking to her about this 1st .
2. The Judge should not allow this to go forward.
3. FEC is base out of St Augustine if I remember correctly. The TV station is out of Boca Raton as was the accident. Who did the TV station try to contact?
Rgds IGN
vsmith wrote: of course I HAD to have my Ipod set on 11 so I could tune out all those negative vibes that spoil my groove like sirens and TRAIN HORNS"
of course I HAD to have my Ipod set on 11 so I could tune out all those negative vibes that spoil my groove like sirens and TRAIN HORNS"
Exactly!
After every other stupid thing she did wrong she could have still saved her self from injury if it had not been for the Ipod, which she obviously had the volume too loud to hear a train (if that's even possible).
jockellis wrote: From what I've heard, the way to fight this is to put up a halfhearted defense then appeal if the jury is swayed by the blonde's crying. Appeals judges are far less inclined to give someone money who doesn't deserve it.
From what I've heard, the way to fight this is to put up a halfhearted defense then appeal if the jury is swayed by the blonde's crying. Appeals judges are far less inclined to give someone money who doesn't deserve it.
...BUT the 1st trial would have had to have something wrong that can be documented or proven wrong (usually a procedure issue) before you get to talk appeal.
narig01 wrote: Could someone send the thread to the TV Station so the station managers asst cld see? My regrets to the lady, I am unsure how to phrase this but here goes. 3. FEC is base out of St Augustine if I remember correctly. The TV station is out of Boca Raton as was the accident. Who did the TV station try to contact?Rgds IGN
As a long time broadcaster I can't believe the TV station tried to contact anyone at the railroad. Too often today, especially in TV, looks are more important than intellegence or journalistic talent and ability. Those I know doing radio, TV and newspaper reporting today tell me they are handed stories by news directors or assignment editors and these stories are public relations handouts and press releases. They sometimes monitor police and fire radios but rarely, if ever, are routine police and political calls made and more rarely do news reporters and thier editors know who to contact in local major industires, businesses, and retail establishments. Neither the viewer (or radio listener) or reader nor the paying advertiser receive any quality product. So, I really don't expect this TV station made any phone calls but rather got a hand out by the blonde's lawyer and sent a reporter and crew out to stand near the railroad tracks.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Guys,
Many of you are assuming FEC will lose. (Wish I had the material with me now) but I've read where there have been a number of cases in the past few years in which railroad and transit companies have been coming out on the winning end on stupid cases like this. However, the local media don't make it front page news when the transportation company wins. Usually relegated to a short paragraph on page 2. It's when the transportation company loses that a lot of attention is focused on the case.
You're forgetting that there are still American citizens that hate the entitlement mentality that do get to serve on juries. Apparently a smart move for these people is "not letting on" that they think that way. Instead the game is not to lie, but to offer bare minimum answers when being questioned by the plaintiff's lawyer(s) when reporting for jury duty.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
narig01 wrote: Could someone send the thread to the TV Station so the station managers asst cld see? My regrets to the lady, I am unsure how to phrase this but here goes. 1. I can only say I would question the Attorney representing her about not talking to her about this 1st .2. The Judge should not allow this to go forward.3. FEC is base out of St Augustine if I remember correctly. The TV station is out of Boca Raton as was the accident. Who did the TV station try to contact?Rgds IGN
Not quite sure where you're going with this, but, for the record, FEC is based out of Jacksonville (Duval Co.) and the Channel 10 is out of Miami (Dade Co.). The accident occurred in Pompano Beach (Broward Co.). FEC used to be headquartered in St. Augustine, but hasn't been for some time now.
I agree that based on what was reported as fact regarding the ipod, trespassing, etc... this case should be thrown out faster than the discards from last nights shrimp boil dinner. There's no way this would've happened if she had just excercised due dilligence on her part by looking out for trains before she attempted to cross the tracks.
I'm still not sure if she was even cited for trespassing; she certainly should've been. Maybe that would buttress FEC's position in this matter. I've seen cases in the past where automobile accident victims laying in hospital beds were handed traffic citations for being at-fault, literally adding insult to injury. Miss Risse should not have been treated any differently.
Ted M.
got trains?™
See my photos at: http://tedmarshall.rrpicturearchives.net/
Despite the carelessness, negligence, distraction of the I-pod, and trespass, it appears that the lawyers will make a case that the railroad is partly responsible because they provided a hazardous condition, and did not barricade or protect it in a way that would prevent the public from being injured by it. I am not a legal expert, but I doubt that the fact that the railroad is private property would fully exonerate the railroad from the charge of failing to protect the public from a hazard.
A hazard on private property unbeknownst to the owner may nevertheless be a liability to the owner if the public is likely to be injured by it. I suspect the hazard may be a greater liability to the owner if he or she does know about it.
This crossing point, although illegal, was apparently routinely used, thus raising the point that railroad was probably aware of that public usage, and thus was aware of the hazard to the public. While they did have the ROW posted, they apparently did not post signage to warn pedestrian traffic approaching this crossing point from both directions.
I have no idea which side will prevail, but I doubt that the case will be thrown out because it has no grounds.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2035578/posts
Quote from the above link:
And so, with the help of Fort Lauderdale attorneys Stephen L. Malove and Scott L. Henratty, she has filed a negligence lawsuit against FEC, the train's engineer and its brakeman.
The eight-count complaint states that the company should have known that pedestrians routinely cross the tracks at that location but did not post ''No Trespassing'' signs on the west side of the tracks.
Several instances where RR lost despite common sense on its side. Enola yard railfan tresspassing on CR property got clipped despite all kinds of warning; RR paid. Drunk driver goes around a line of cars stopped at occupied grade crossing with lights, bells, gates, trainman flagging on the crossing, goes under the train peeling the roof off car and lnot a scratch on him, gets DUI ticket, sues the railroad and wins. There are more stories like that...we commonly refer to them as "The hot coffee in the lap vs Mc Donald's" legal awards.
what has not been mentioned is that this is a long stretch of straight right of way & the engineer should have seen her a long way off & applied his brakes, but he was reading his favorite novel or listening to HIS Ipod. FEC will probably lose out on this case. This is also a triple rail line & FEC are going to have to rip up one track, erect a three foot fence and install a bike & jogging path along the removed track.
morseman wrote:what has not been mentioned is that this is a long stretch of straight right of way & the engineer should have seen her a long way off & applied his brakes, but he was reading his favorite novel or listening to HIS Ipod.
what has not been mentioned is that this is a long stretch of straight right of way & the engineer should have seen her a long way off & applied his brakes, but he was reading his favorite novel or listening to HIS Ipod.
Ted Marshall wrote: narig01 wrote: Could someone send the thread to the TV Station so the station managers asst cld see? My regrets to the lady, I am unsure how to phrase this but here goes. 1. I can only say I would question the Attorney representing her about not talking to her about this 1st .2. The Judge should not allow this to go forward.3. FEC is base out of St Augustine if I remember correctly. The TV station is out of Boca Raton as was the accident. Who did the TV station try to contact?Rgds IGNNot quite sure where you're going with this, but, for the record, FEC is based out of Jacksonville (Duval Co.) and the Channel 10 is out of Miami (Dade Co.). The accident occurred in Pompano Beach (Broward Co.). FEC used to be headquartered in St. Augustine, but hasn't been for some time now.I agree that based on what was reported as fact regarding the ipod, trespassing, etc... this case should be thrown out faster than the discards from last nights shrimp boil dinner. There's no way this would've happened if she had just excercised due dilligence on her part by looking out for trains before she attempted to cross the tracks. I'm still not sure if she was even cited for trespassing; she certainly should've been. Maybe that would buttress FEC's position in this matter. I've seen cases in the past where automobile accident victims laying in hospital beds were handed traffic citations for being at-fault, literally adding insult to injury. Miss Risse should not have been treated any differently.
Can I get an amen on this !
UP sends an officer out and tickets anybody walking on their property..
Dont cross their tracks anywhere but a street Xing in Ft Worth,Tx....
It is true that if any crewmembers admitted to having been negligently distracted when the woman was hit, it will harm the railroad's defense.
However, a much greater harm to that defense may have been done by members of that crew or of other crews if they were aware that the public had established a frequently used crossing at that one particular point, and yet did not pass this information up to their supervisors. Or if the supervisors had learned of the frequently used crossing and did nothing to eliminate its use, then they will have harmed the railroad's defense. In this specific aspect, the fact that the crossing was illegal and amounted to trespass is beside the point.
marknewton wrote: morseman wrote: what has not been mentioned is that this is a long stretch of straight right of way & the engineer should have seen her a long way off & applied his brakes, but he was reading his favorite novel or listening to HIS Ipod.You know this to be a fact, do you?In the unlikely event you ever find yourself in charge of a train, know this - you don't make a brake application every time you see someone who may or may not cross your path.Mark.
morseman wrote: what has not been mentioned is that this is a long stretch of straight right of way & the engineer should have seen her a long way off & applied his brakes, but he was reading his favorite novel or listening to HIS Ipod.
The report stated she was crossing the tracks which means the jogger you see running along the road next to the tracks (or alongside the tracks) may suddenly change direction and begin crossing right in front of you before you can effect the trains speed, all the engineer may have been able to do was put it in emergency stop and lay on the horn and hope the moron looks your way before they get tagged.
Based one the behavior of joggers I have seen here, looking around does not help generate the myopic groove joggers delve to get into, I've seen joggers run into major intersections without even looking. Thats what I think happened here. Didnt even look up, and was wondering what that dam noise spoiling her groove was in her earplugs just before the world went upside down.
Have fun with your trains
Bucyrus wrote: It is true that if any crewmembers admitted to having been negligently distracted when the woman was hit, it will harm the railroad's defense. However, a much greater harm to that defense may has been done by members of that crew or of other crews if they were aware that the public had established a frequently used crossing at that one particular point, and yet did not pass this information up to their supervisors. Or if the supervisors had learned of the frequently used crossing and did nothing to eliminate its use, then they will have harmed the railroad's defense. In this specific aspect, the fact that the crossing was illegal and amounted to trespass is beside the point.
However, a much greater harm to that defense may has been done by members of that crew or of other crews if they were aware that the public had established a frequently used crossing at that one particular point, and yet did not pass this information up to their supervisors. Or if the supervisors had learned of the frequently used crossing and did nothing to eliminate its use, then they will have harmed the railroad's defense. In this specific aspect, the fact that the crossing was illegal and amounted to trespass is beside the point.
Exactly right on both counts (add in also if there was any deficiency in the locomotive or the required inspections were not done as another source of liability for the railroad as well). Its rather pointless to point this out though. While nothing is more annoying to me than non-attorneys who have little or no understanding of how the legal system actually operates commenting about a pending legal case based on a newspaper article or a TV report, it is a waste of time to try to explain concepts such as "attractive nuisance" or "comparative negligence."
One time only the general rules of commenting on personal injury (tort) law involving railroads
1) Most states use comparative risk (a few such as my state, Virginia, still use common law contributory negligence). Comparative risk actually originated in use with the Federal Employees Liability Act (FELA) as a way to get rid of inputed contributory negligence and the common servant rule which made it almost impossible for any railroad employees to collect against their employers. Thus, with the vast majority of railroad injuries comparative negligence will be used. If you do not know what comparative negligence means, it means that if the defendant is found to be negligent, damages will be accessed (say $1,000,000 for example). Then, the negligence of the plaintiff will be accessed - say in this example, the plaintiff was found to be 50% at fault. In that case, in almost all states (and FELA) the plaintiff would collect $500,000. If the plaintiff was found to be 75% at fault, in some states the plaintiff would collect $250,000 - others (which require the plaintiff to be less than 50% at fault) nothing. If plaintiff was 25% at fault, the plaintiff would collect $750,000 If contributory negligence is used, if the defendant is 99% at fault, the plaintiff will collect nothing.
2) Contributary negligence has been scrapped in most places precisely because it is unfair and because it does not reflect reality - rare is the accident where one party will be 100% at fault (an example would be if a drunk driver driving 150 miles per hour slams into a building). In most accidents both parties will be blameworthy.
3) The defendant's negligence is measured using what is called the Hand Formula, from United States v. Carroll Towing - named after the opinion's author, Judge Hand. A defendant will be negligent if the cost of their burden exceeds the probability and the damages. In many railroad accident cases, the potential damages are very large - the probability varies by location - if there was street running down 5th Avenue in New York City, the odds of an accident would be very high. A high risk of accident would also take place at a grade crossing between a busy rail line and a busy highway. A rural crossing between a lightly used branch line and a lightly used road will have a much lower probability of an accident. A place where the rail line and roads/sidewalks have grade separation has an even lower probality of accident. Thus, the burden that the railroad has to prevent accidents will be much higher the busier the crossing.
4) For the purposes of tort law, whether a crossing is legal or illegal but known matters very little. In both cases, the burden may attach to the railroad - thus, if there is a known highly appealing unauthorized pedesterian crossing, merely putting up a "no trespassing" sign may not be sufficient to prevent legal liability. In such a case, fencing might be appropriate and cost effective.
5) Certain risks are so great either due to probability or burden that what is called strict liability is supplied - the classic textbook example is blasting. Attempts have been made to make rail transportation of hazardous chemicals subject to strict liability, but they have failed thus far.
6) The fact that someone is a trespasser does not relieve a party's responsibility to provide steps to minimize injuries and cannot be used to defeat "gross negligence." The duty of care will vary whether a person is an unknown or known trespasser - but there will always be a limitation on the use of deadly force such as traps or spring guns. The doctrine of "attractive nuisance" applies. In most railroad cases, the question is whether the location was a spot known for having trespassers - if so, the railroad may have had the obligation to take steps to prevent trespassers from using that spot. Obviously, an operating train can result in death.
7) Tort law is all about accessing responsibility (especially in comparative negligence regimes). Thus, it is with the utmost irony that persons who complaint about plaintiffs always claim that they lack responsibility. Apparently large corporation's responsibility do not matter.
8) Newspaper articles and TV reports are not going to provide a full picture of what really happened. They never provide the full story and they may well be biased. Keep in mind that many media companies are owned entirely (see, e.g. NBC-Universal, formerly CBS when they were owned by Loew's and later when Westinghouse bought them) or in large part (almost all of the others, but especially Disney and the Washington Post Corporation) by insurance or industrial companies (GE who owns NBC qualifies as both since they have some insurance subsidiaries) who have a specific financial interest in destroying tort law as a means to regulate corporate behavior.
9) Unless you understand all of those above concepts (not to mention the underlying substantive tort law involved) and are willing to speak only in hypotheticals (unless you have actually read all of the parties' pleadings which would presumably lay out any arguments and factual disputes in determining whether a case will go to a jury) you are not qualified to speak about the existance of liability or whether a law suit is frivilous or not.
10) Very few lawyers file truly frivilous suits - when such suits are filed, they are generally by large corporations, often against individuals (called "SLAPP suits" for strategic lawsuit against public participation where a corporation attempts to silence a critic by filing a meritless lawsuit against them) but sometimes other large corporations (e.g. the Fox News suit against Al Franken (the judge hearing that case called it "wholly without merit legally or factually") or almost in one particularly hilarious case another division of the same company (Fox News once threatened to sue The Simpsons over a parody of the Fox News ticker apparently forgetting that they are both owned by NewsCorp). Most truly frivilous suits by individuals are filed pro se - often by prisoners - and generally against the government. In any case, such suits are generally quickly disposed of - and in the case of corporations, their insurance policies cover the bills (and legal fees and insurance policies are tax deductable as an ordinary and necessary business expense) so the actual cost of corporations of such suits is minimal (and deducted from their taxes anyway).
morseman wrote: what has not been mentioned is that this is a long stretch of straight right of way & the engineer should have seen her a long way off & applied his brakes, but he was reading his favorite novel or listening to HIS Ipod. FEC will probably lose out on this case. This is also a triple rail line & FEC are going to have to rip up one track, erect a three foot fence and install a bike & jogging path along the removed track.
penncentral2002 wrote: Contributary negligence has been scrapped in most places precisely because it is unfair and because it does not reflect reality - rare is the accident where one party will be 100% at fault (an example would be if a drunk driver driving 150 miles per hour slams into a building)
Contributary negligence has been scrapped in most places precisely because it is unfair and because it does not reflect reality - rare is the accident where one party will be 100% at fault (an example would be if a drunk driver driving 150 miles per hour slams into a building)
In most accidents both parties will be blameworthy.
Thus, it is with the utmost irony that persons who complaint about plaintiffs always claim that they lack responsibility. Apparently large corporation's responsibility do not matter.
penncentral2002 wrote: Bucyrus wrote: It is true that if any crewmembers admitted to having been negligently distracted when the woman was hit, it will harm the railroad's defense. However, a much greater harm to that defense may has been done by members of that crew or of other crews if they were aware that the public had established a frequently used crossing at that one particular point, and yet did not pass this information up to their supervisors. Or if the supervisors had learned of the frequently used crossing and did nothing to eliminate its use, then they will have harmed the railroad's defense. In this specific aspect, the fact that the crossing was illegal and amounted to trespass is beside the point. Exactly right on both counts (add in also if there was any deficiency in the locomotive or the required inspections were not done as another source of liability for the railroad as well). Its rather pointless to point this out though. While nothing is more annoying to me than non-attorneys who have little or no understanding of how the legal system actually operates commenting about a pending legal case based on a newspaper article or a TV report, it is a waste of time to try to explain concepts such as "attractive nuisance" or "comparative negligence." One time only the general rules of commenting on personal injury (tort) law involving railroads 1) Most states use comparative risk (a few such as my state, Virginia, still use common law contributory negligence). Comparative risk actually originated in use with the Federal Employees Liability Act (FELA) as a way to get rid of inputed contributory negligence and the common servant rule which made it almost impossible for any railroad employees to collect against their employers. Thus, with the vast majority of railroad injuries comparative negligence will be used. If you do not know what comparative negligence means, it means that if the defendant is found to be negligent, damages will be accessed (say $1,000,000 for example). Then, the negligence of the plaintiff will be accessed - say in this example, the plaintiff was found to be 50% at fault. In that case, in almost all states (and FELA) the plaintiff would collect $500,000. If the plaintiff was found to be 75% at fault, in some states the plaintiff would collect $250,000 - others (which require the plaintiff to be less than 50% at fault) nothing. If plaintiff was 25% at fault, the plaintiff would collect $750,000 If contributory negligence is used, if the defendant is 99% at fault, the plaintiff will collect nothing.2) Contributary negligence has been scrapped in most places precisely because it is unfair and because it does not reflect reality - rare is the accident where one party will be 100% at fault (an example would be if a drunk driver driving 150 miles per hour slams into a building). In most accidents both parties will be blameworthy.3) The defendant's negligence is measured using what is called the Hand Formula, from United States v. Carroll Towing - named after the opinion's author, Judge Hand. A defendant will be negligent if the cost of their burden exceeds the probability and the damages. In many railroad accident cases, the potential damages are very large - the probability varies by location - if there was street running down 5th Avenue in New York City, the odds of an accident would be very high. A high risk of accident would also take place at a grade crossing between a busy rail line and a busy highway. A rural crossing between a lightly used branch line and a lightly used road will have a much lower probability of an accident. A place where the rail line and roads/sidewalks have grade separation has an even lower probality of accident. Thus, the burden that the railroad has to prevent accidents will be much higher the busier the crossing.4) For the purposes of tort law, whether a crossing is legal or illegal but known matters very little. In both cases, the burden may attach to the railroad - thus, if there is a known highly appealing unauthorized pedesterian crossing, merely putting up a "no trespassing" sign may not be sufficient to prevent legal liability. In such a case, fencing might be appropriate and cost effective.5) Certain risks are so great either due to probability or burden that what is called strict liability is supplied - the classic textbook example is blasting. Attempts have been made to make rail transportation of hazardous chemicals subject to strict liability, but they have failed thus far. 6) The fact that someone is a trespasser does not relieve a party's responsibility to provide steps to minimize injuries and cannot be used to defeat "gross negligence." The duty of care will vary whether a person is an unknown or known trespasser - but there will always be a limitation on the use of deadly force such as traps or spring guns. The doctrine of "attractive nuisance" applies. In most railroad cases, the question is whether the location was a spot known for having trespassers - if so, the railroad may have had the obligation to take steps to prevent trespassers from using that spot. Obviously, an operating train can result in death.7) Tort law is all about accessing responsibility (especially in comparative negligence regimes). Thus, it is with the utmost irony that persons who complaint about plaintiffs always claim that they lack responsibility. Apparently large corporation's responsibility do not matter.8) Newspaper articles and TV reports are not going to provide a full picture of what really happened. They never provide the full story and they may well be biased. Keep in mind that many media companies are owned entirely (see, e.g. NBC-Universal, formerly CBS when they were owned by Loew's and later when Westinghouse bought them) or in large part (almost all of the others, but especially Disney and the Washington Post Corporation) by insurance or industrial companies (GE who owns NBC qualifies as both since they have some insurance subsidiaries) who have a specific financial interest in destroying tort law as a means to regulate corporate behavior.9) Unless you understand all of those above concepts (not to mention the underlying substantive tort law involved) and are willing to speak only in hypotheticals (unless you have actually read all of the parties' pleadings which would presumably lay out any arguments and factual disputes in determining whether a case will go to a jury) you are not qualified to speak about the existance of liability or whether a law suit is frivilous or not.10) Very few lawyers file truly frivilous suits - when such suits are filed, they are generally by large corporations, often against individuals (called "SLAPP suits" for strategic lawsuit against public participation where a corporation attempts to silence a critic by filing a meritless lawsuit against them) but sometimes other large corporations (e.g. the Fox News suit against Al Franken (the judge hearing that case called it "wholly without merit legally or factually") or almost in one particularly hilarious case another division of the same company (Fox News once threatened to sue The Simpsons over a parody of the Fox News ticker apparently forgetting that they are both owned by NewsCorp). Most truly frivilous suits by individuals are filed pro se - often by prisoners - and generally against the government. In any case, such suits are generally quickly disposed of - and in the case of corporations, their insurance policies cover the bills (and legal fees and insurance policies are tax deductable as an ordinary and necessary business expense) so the actual cost of corporations of such suits is minimal (and deducted from their taxes anyway).
Well, excuse me!
I was under the apparently false impression that it was "our" legal system and not "The Lawyers' Legal System". I foolishly commented on it. How dare I? I guess I was right on one thing. The current US legal system is of, by, and for, only lawyers. And, according to you, it's quite "irritating" to listen to our comments. We're just the people paying the bills. Heaven forbid if we irritate you with our comments.
One thing that's been overlooked in this "irritating to a lawyer" discussion is the fact that the injured woman is also attacking the crewmembers. Now they're going to have to hire and pay their own lawyers. (Quite the racket.) Unless they've got some kind of legal insurance, this is going to put a real big hole in their finances. It ain't cheap. They could end up being found totally blameless and still be out tens of thousands of dollars.
That's the way she works. The lawyers make up some incredibly complex rules to further their own purpose (see above) and argue about them while charging people a small fortune to do it. And then they get "irritated" when people "comment".
Well guys,
We have minor disagreements here and there, but IMHO, I think that we all agree that this situation absolutely stinks! Yes, she lost her legs and most of us sympathize but her suing FEC is outrageous. I'm still trying to figure out how, even if wearing an I-Pod or some other gadget she could not hear a train approaching? Did she have it cranked up to 100 decibals?
It's not just railroads. Suppose she would have been struck by a speeding bus or semi-truck as she crossed a seldom used road while listening to music. Seems that transportation companies continue to be fair game after all.
I hope FEC doesn't decide to settle and decides to fight this one tooth and nail.
Bucyrus wrote:Just guessing, but I suspect that railroads get sued routinely when their trains hit vehicles at grade crossings. I wonder if it is routine to also name the crew personally in the suit, or if this Florida case is unique in that regard.
Not a lawyer responding here but lawyers typically name anybody and everybody... Eventually those that are truly not involved in the incident are dismissed but still they had costs and the stress involved. This atty probably named that last crew to do maintenance on the engine and the brake manufacturer and every one in between as well - especially the guy who posted that No Trespassing sign on the video, he should have known too! (<-- legal system favorite bs, "knew or should have known...")
What? Hear wha...
mp
To the best of my knowledge FEC is not releasing the names of the crew in this case. At least not yet. My buddies over at FEC know who they are, but are not saying who.
AntonioFP45 wrote:Well guys,We have minor disagreements here and there, but IMHO, I think that we all agree that this situation absolutely stinks! Yes, she lost her legs and most of us sympathize...
We have minor disagreements here and there, but IMHO, I think that we all agree that this situation absolutely stinks! Yes, she lost her legs and most of us sympathize...
The article that I linked earlier said this:
"The eight-count complaint states that the company should have known that pedestrians routinely cross the tracks at that location but did not post ''No Trespassing'' signs on the west side of the tracks.
Yes, it's trespassing, but that hardly stops anyone from using the spot to get to a running path on the east side of the tracks, her attorneys say."
It would be interesting to learn why pedestrians routinely cross the tracks at that location. The implication is that for some logistical reason, pedestrian traffic funnels down to cross the tracks at one particular location. To the extent that this crossing gets concentrated to one location, it should become more obvious to the railroad company, especially if the pedestrians wear a path on both sides of the crossing point.
I know of a similar situation near where I live. There is a public trail system at one point, nearly abutting a private trail system. A railroad mainline separates the two trail systems. Trail users routinely cross the tracks to get from one trail system to the other. Not only is there a well-worn path on each side, but they have also eroded the crushed rock ballast right out from between the ties.
Are you serious? If so, I suggest talking to a real railroader (not an FRN) about train operations.
Now that is just plain silly.
And exactly what good would a three-foot fence do? Keep out the gophers?
That statement is extremely accusatory and possibly libelous, and if you do not know for certain that this is what the engineer was doing, you should just shut your pie hole!
zardoz wrote: morseman wrote: what has not been mentioned is that this is a long stretch of straight right of way & the engineer should have seen her a long way off & applied his brakes, but he was reading his favorite novel or listening to HIS Ipod. FEC will probably lose out on this case. This is also a triple rail line & FEC are going to have to rip up one track, erect a three foot fence and install a bike & jogging path along the removed track.Are you serious? If so, I suggest talking to a real railroader (not an FRN) about train operations.Now that is just plain silly. And exactly what good would a three-foot fence do? Keep out the gophers?That statement is extremely accusatory and possibly libelous, and if you do not know for certain that this is what the engineer was doing, you should just shut your pie hole!
morseman wrote: zardoz wrote: morseman wrote: what has not been mentioned is that this is a long stretch of straight right of way & the engineer should have seen her a long way off & applied his brakes, but he was reading his favorite novel or listening to HIS Ipod. FEC will probably lose out on this case. This is also a triple rail line & FEC are going to have to rip up one track, erect a three foot fence and install a bike & jogging path along the removed track.Are you serious? If so, I suggest talking to a real railroader (not an FRN) about train operations.Now that is just plain silly. And exactly what good would a three-foot fence do? Keep out the gophers?That statement is extremely accusatory and possibly libelous, and if you do not know for certain that this is what the engineer was doing, you should just shut your pie hole!If you had read my followup, you would have noted that I was facetious (given to or marked by playful joculliarty, humorous). If I was in error, it is that I should have been more serious about such a serious incident, for which I apologize.
The only thing serious about this indcident is the level of stupidity the "victim" has shown.
You have no need to apologize; indeed, it is I who owes you an apology: I did not see your followup post.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.