I'd like to hope whoever wrote that post was one of the pink-haired fruit-cakes up here to protest the RNC convention, but alas it probably wasn't.
Even if you fence-off the bridge there'll be an increase, not decrease, in injuries/deaths on that structure since the idiots will be trying to climb the fence.
Well, some genius on the St Paul pioneer Press forum on this story had a BRILLIANT idea! "Fence off the bridge".
I kid you not.
....Due to recent death, perhaps it's worth a try.
Quentin
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
....I agree with Bucyrus as he related the potential dangers one would face every foot he advances across that bridge walkway {at night}....and it seems to me there is only one protection of one's life regarding that situation.....Stay off that property.....!!!
Now, how the RR accomplishes that task seems to be a real problem...
But some group of management should sit down and figure how it can be accomplished. This task is not unsolvable.....but it would be difficult to design I suppose. More difficult tasks are no doubt solved each day in Corp. structures.
marknewton wrote: Bucyrus wrote:Mark, it is certainly reasonable to say that trespassing on the bridge would be dangerous, but I would not call it a deathtrap. You wouldn't, because I suspect you've never had to walk on a structure like that. From experience, I would. A perfectly robustly constructed walkway with a perfect hand railing running thousands of feet in a perfectly straight, level line inspires confidence. After a thousand feet or so, the confidence turns into complacency. Why wear out your hand by keeping it riding along the railing? There is no need to hang onto the railing on such a perfect, secure walkway.Isn't there? If you seriously believe that, then continuing this exchange is a waste of time. If you let go of the handrail, you are putting yourself at great risk, no ifs, no buts, no hypotheticals. The handrail is there for a reason. If you can't understand that, I have to wonder how do you deal with the hazards in your workplace?Who would expect a hole big enough to fall through? How many people would see the hole in time? Anyone with more than two functioning brain cells. Anyone who was watching where they were putting their feet. Anyone whose training and experience included walking safely across a railroad bridge. Anyone except the dozey slapper who fell off the thing, apparently.That hole in the walkway is exponentially more dangerous than all the general hazards of the bridge put together. I would call that hole a deathtrap.In fact it is such an extreme deathtrap that I would not be surprised if we learn more about how it came about as the story develops.Again, is there ANY evidence of a hole in the walkway?
Bucyrus wrote:Mark, it is certainly reasonable to say that trespassing on the bridge would be dangerous, but I would not call it a deathtrap.
A perfectly robustly constructed walkway with a perfect hand railing running thousands of feet in a perfectly straight, level line inspires confidence. After a thousand feet or so, the confidence turns into complacency. Why wear out your hand by keeping it riding along the railing? There is no need to hang onto the railing on such a perfect, secure walkway.
Who would expect a hole big enough to fall through? How many people would see the hole in time?
That hole in the walkway is exponentially more dangerous than all the general hazards of the bridge put together. I would call that hole a deathtrap.In fact it is such an extreme deathtrap that I would not be surprised if we learn more about how it came about as the story develops.
The news reports have stated that a plank was missing, leaving a 6-foot-long hole presumably as wide as the plank. I still would not call the bridge in general a deathtrap. People have been trespassing on it for 100 years, and there have not been a lot of deaths. Maybe you would hang onto the handrail, but I doubt that most people would. I might keep my hand running along it ready to grip if the conditions seemed really treacherous. There is no obvious reason to hang onto it unless the wind is blowing hard and/or there is a lot of snow or ice. It's mainly a barrier to keep a person from walking off the edge of the plank. If hanging onto the handrail were critical, you would have to have a continuous grip on it, which would be hard to do while walking.
Holding the handrail would also require that you walk close to that edge which has a pretty big gap between the planks and the lower pipe, however, walking close to the railing does provide the largest clearance to trains. But if I were walking across, I would favor the side of the walkway nearest the track and keep an eye out for trains. I would also keep my eyes on the walkway. If it were daytime, I would expect to see a big hole in time to avoid falling through it. If I did not have a light, and it was so dark that I could not see the walkway, I would be really wary of falling through a hole. If you are aware of all possibilities, you must consider that the walkway may have gotten torn up by a passing train and nobody knows it yet.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
Bucyrus, I understand your arguments as best a layman can. But I strongly disagre with them.
If a snowmobiler or fourwheeler comes on to my property (It's happened) and runs into a tree that I planted am I partially liable because I couldn't stop them and they ran into that tree? How much of my retirement money are they going to get? After all, I knew snowmobilers and fourwheelers were trespassing and I put the tree there. And I knew if they ran into that tree they would be hurt.
Our legal system is really bad. (NOT saying all lawyers are bad.) I'm convinced this partial liablity for the property owner is designed to make the honcho lawyers rich. (The minion lawyers also toil to make the honchos wealthy.) It serves no other purpose. Lawyers control our government bodies. The courts, naturally. But also the legislatures and ususally the executive. They just set up a system for their own benifit.
In this particular case, the bridge had "No Trespassing" signs and the deceased was an adult. She was responsible for her own safety and she failed that responsibility. I'm sorry she paid such a high price, but IMHO the CN had no responsibilty to keep the bridge safe for public pedestrian use and was in no way negligent.
It probably won't come out of court that way because of the above reasons.
I've stood on the public ROW at the west end of that bridge, looked out along the length of it and thought to myself - what a cool place for a train photo, but you couldn't pay me to walk out there.
Guys - the legal forum is over here.
http://chat.lawinfo.com/
I come hear to read about the state of the RR industry - not tort law. I think this post has gone waaaaay off topic.
marknewton wrote: Bucyrus wrote: A hole big enough to fall through, in the middle of a narrow walkway, in the middle of the night would be a death trap. Anything less than posting armed guards would probably be negligence. The entire bridge is a "death trap", if you're a trespasser wandering around on it at 1.00 in the morning. The law may well say one thing about liability, but common sense tells me that the responsibility is all down to the trespasser if they fall. That seems to be the sticking point here...Mark.
Bucyrus wrote: A hole big enough to fall through, in the middle of a narrow walkway, in the middle of the night would be a death trap. Anything less than posting armed guards would probably be negligence.
Mark, it is certainly reasonable to say that trespassing on the bridge would be dangerous, but I would not call it a deathtrap. A person could walk back and forth across that bridge continuously every day and night without getting hurt unless they were struck by a derailment or something dragging. So I would reserve the term deathtrap for things far more dangerous.
A perfectly robustly constructed walkway with a perfect hand railing running thousands of feet in a perfectly straight, level line inspires confidence. After a thousand feet or so, the confidence turns into complacency. Why wear out your hand by keeping it riding along the railing? There is no need to hang onto the railing on such a perfect, secure walkway. Who would expect a hole big enough to fall through? How many people would see the hole in time? That hole in the walkway is exponentially more dangerous than all the general hazards of the bridge put together. I would call that hole a deathtrap.
In fact it is such an extreme deathtrap that I would not be surprised if we learn more about how it came about as the story develops. It could have just as easily killed a trainman.
That second picture of the train's shadow is quite a shot.
ed
rrnut282 wrote: I agree with your premise that if I set a booby-trap and someone gets hurt on my property, I should accept a large portion of the fault. I should know better and it is intended to harm. I do not agree that I should bear an unfair (any) portion of fault if someone accidentaly injures themselves while on my property. If someone were walking across a room in my house and they catch their foot in the deep shag carpet and clumsily trips into an end table breaking an arm, by your definition, as I see it, it's my fault.
I agree with your premise that if I set a booby-trap and someone gets hurt on my property, I should accept a large portion of the fault. I should know better and it is intended to harm. I do not agree that I should bear an unfair (any) portion of fault if someone accidentaly injures themselves while on my property. If someone were walking across a room in my house and they catch their foot in the deep shag carpet and clumsily trips into an end table breaking an arm, by your definition, as I see it, it's my fault.
But that is not my definition that you are applying to your carpet example. I would not consider you to be at fault in that example. I said that my conclusion is that the property owner is sometimes partially liable for death or injury to a trespasser. I think it has a lot to do with how dangerous the hazard is, and if the owner should be expected to recognize the danger and protect others from it. In your shag carpet example, I assume that generally you would not be held liable if it were taken to court because the hazard is relatively small and not easily anticipated.
But if I saw a missing plank leaving a hole large enough to fall through in a 180-foot high catwalk on a bridge that has a 100-year history of public trespass, I would call the railroad and tell them that somebody is going to fall through the hole.
I agree with your premise that if I set a booby-trap and someone gets hurt on my property, I should accept a large portion of the fault. I should know better and it is intended to harm. I do not agree that I should bear an unfair (any) portion of fault if someone accidentaly injures themselves while on my property. If someone were walking across a room in my house and they catch their foot in the deep shag carpet and clumsily trips into an end table breaking an arm, by your definition, as I see it, it's my fault. I shouldn't have carpet or a table because "someone may get hurt". Where does it stop? I shouldn't have a house at all because if someone gets hurt when a shingle falls off in a high wind, it'll be my fault. Try explaining to your kids why you had to take down the pool because you couldn't afford the extra liability insurance.
Another example, I have to get up at 0400 dark and shovel the sidewalk in front of my house when it snows, because someone MIGHT SLIP IN THE SNOW, duh, and I can be sued for medical expenses, even though, technically, the sidewalk is in the right-of-way owned by the government. That really starches my shorts.
There needs to be a better common sense approach to this subject. Let's stop rewarding stupidity.
rrnut282 wrote: You're taking a hypothetical situation to an extreme to force others to agree to your conclusion. Who can argue against an innocent child? Irregardless, I don't build booby traps and I still would feel bad about a child dying on my property, even if I had contributed nothing to that death. But that doesn't entitle the parents (who were supposed to be protecting and educating the child) to compensation from me or my insurance company. As a parent myself, they will have my sympathies, but not my wallet.
You're taking a hypothetical situation to an extreme to force others to agree to your conclusion. Who can argue against an innocent child?
Irregardless, I don't build booby traps and I still would feel bad about a child dying on my property, even if I had contributed nothing to that death. But that doesn't entitle the parents (who were supposed to be protecting and educating the child) to compensation from me or my insurance company. As a parent myself, they will have my sympathies, but not my wallet.
Yes I am citing an extreme example to make my point, but the example is be a valid representation of my point. When you suggest that I want to force others to agree with my conclusion, perhaps I should clarify what my conclusion is. It is not that the property owner is always 100% liable for death or injury to all trespassers despite the owner's posting of no trespassing signs. My conclusion is that the property owner is sometimes partially liable for death or injury to a trespasser.
But your conclusion seems to be that a property owner is never liable for death or injury to a trespasser simply because the trespasser should not have entered the property where the death or injury occurred. I disagree with this never liable position, so I offered an extreme example in order to refute that position. There is a lot of gray area. And with my extreme example, you can see that there is moral and logical reasoning behind the property owner being liable in at least some cases.
Larry,
I used a child in my example to make my point, and it is true that a trespassing adult would be expected to take on more of the responsibility and blame for their own injury. However, the principles can carry over to some extent, and apply to adults as well as children, depending on nature of the hazard, the care that the owner has exercised to guard the hazard, and the nature of the trespass. I have no idea how this would shake out in the case of this bridge fall. Attractive nuisance does seem to be developed around a child trespasser, as I used to make the point of my example. However, my general understanding is that the principles are not necessarily confined to cases where an injured trespasser is a child. Here is an example of an argument to apply attractive nuisance defense to that case of the two boys who were burned by railroad catenary wires.
"In his 25-page opinion in Klein v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel found that Pennsylvania courts have recognized the attractive nuisance theory -- outlined in §339 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts -- as a valid exception to the general liability standard for trespassers, and that no Pennsylvania court has ever set an arbitrary age limit.
"The plaintiffs have presented some evidence that 17-year-old males generally do not have fully mature brains, and as such cannot fully control their impulses or appreciate some risks," Stengel wrote."
Bucyrus - Your example of a child would certainly hold merit. On the other hand, if some adult dummy entered your property uninvited and crawled under your car, which was supported only by a bumper jack, suffering injury or death, would he not be chiefly, if not fully, responsible for his own situation?
Just because he was curious about what brand muffler you had on the car does not justify his putting himself at risk. Are you responsible for erecting guards, blocking the car, etc?
rrnut282 wrote: Yes, I have heard that, and I am scratching my head why I have to pay if someone uninvited and unwanted and warned gets hurt where I don't want them to be. When did consequences for the actions of others become my problem?
Yes, I have heard that, and I am scratching my head why I have to pay if someone uninvited and unwanted and warned gets hurt where I don't want them to be. When did consequences for the actions of others become my problem?
It arises from the weighing of your right to not be subjected to trespass against the right of others to not get killed or injured by a hazard that you have created. Suppose you have (for whatever reason) a hidden booby trap on your property that could kill a person, but you know about it, so you are safe. Say you have your property clearly posted against trespass. And say a child wanders onto your property (for whatever reason) and gets killed in your booby trap. And say the child could not read nor understand the concept of trespass. Just on a moral basis, do you think you would bear some of the responsibility for the child's death?
Oh, I forgot, congress.
rrnut282 wrote:I have to disagree, as that postion benefits only one segment of our society, lawyers. By posting armed guards, do you mean they have to shoot the trespassers lest they have an accident and sue?
No, I would not suggest shooting people to prevent them from trespassing, so maybe the guards need not be armed. Do you realize that you can be found liable for certain hazards on your own property if they pose a risk to the public, even though the public is trespassing on your property?
tomikawaTT wrote: Let me get this straight:This big, beautiful bridge has a nice 2' (looks like) walkway with a pipe guard rail that should be able to keep anyone smaller than a sumo wrestler from going through it.The big, bad railroad simply posted a No Trespassing sign. They didn't station an armed security guard to prevent the mentally or alcoholically challenged from walking out on the bridge.Somebody wasn't smart enough to notice (in broad daylight - 911 call at 1pm) that there was a plank missing, stepped into the hole and improved the gene pool.Pardon me if I feel that way. I was brought up to take responsibility for my own actions (even the potentially fatal ones.) I am also equipped with two fully functional eyeballs - and have frequently been in places where failing to insure the solidity of my footing would have been life-threatening if not downright suicidal.As far as I am concerned, any lawyer who would use this event to try to extort money from the railroad should be horsewhipped.Chuck
Let me get this straight:
Pardon me if I feel that way. I was brought up to take responsibility for my own actions (even the potentially fatal ones.) I am also equipped with two fully functional eyeballs - and have frequently been in places where failing to insure the solidity of my footing would have been life-threatening if not downright suicidal.
As far as I am concerned, any lawyer who would use this event to try to extort money from the railroad should be horsewhipped.
Chuck
Even with both eyeballs working in broad daylight, it is very easy to step into a hole if one happens to be where one is walking and does not expect a hole to be. A hole big enough to fall through, in the middle of a narrow walkway, in the middle of the night would be a death trap. Anything less than posting armed guards would probably be negligence.
It was at ~1:00 AM and very dark at the time.
Can anyone answer my hypothetical question about CN's detour route if that bridge is OOS? Could they use the UP's Hudson - Eau Claire - Chippewa Falls trackage to bypass the Arcola bridge, or would they need to go up to Superior for Twin Cities - Stevens Point traffic?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.