Woman falls from CN bridge - dies

[Anonymous]

Hypothetically, if the Arcola bridge was out-of-service for any reason, what route would the CN use to detour over for Twin Cities - Stevens Point traffic?  Could they use the UP from Hudson to Chippewa Falls?  Or maybe they'd run-up to Superior over the BNSF?

[zardoz]

Speaking of stupid, yesterday a woman here in Bradenton pulled her Toyota around a stop sign AND a flagman and into the path of a 5-miles-per-hour Seminole Gulf train.  Now bloggers on the newspaper site and wondering if the flagman "was off driniking coffee somewhere..."

Sometimes I feel like I am losing touch with society...

Was the stop sign out to lunch as well?

[Tharmeni]

Speaking of stupid, yesterday a woman here in Bradenton pulled her Toyota around a stop sign AND a flagman and into the path of a 5-miles-per-hour Seminole Gulf train.  Now bloggers on the newspaper site and wondering if the flagman "was off driniking coffee somewhere..."

Sometimes I feel like I am losing touch with society...

[Boyd]

It happened at 1am. She was a pretty gal. I know I had seen her around town but didn't know her. County sherrifs have warned people to stay off the bridge.

[Anonymous]

http://www.twincities.com/ci_10170099?source=most_emailed

According to the article, the couple were just going for a walk and she fell through a six-foot long gap where a plank was missing.  The real risk takers use the rope swing hanging under the bridge over the river.  I'm not sure how that works if the idea is to swing out and drop into the river.  That river can be a bit tough to get out of once the current gets a hold of you. 

Just downstream from the Arcola Bridge was the original bridge crossing at a much lower elevation.  Like ancient ruins, a line of many giant stone piers left over from the original bridge marches across the rather wide river.  They stand about 30 feet high above the water.

[Andrew Falconer]

From the photos it looks like that bridge is very sturdy.

It would only be inviting for the extreme risk takers to cross it and hang out on it.

Among the possible events related to the woman's fall that might have happened on it are illicit drug use and sexual activities that would appeal to those extreme risk takers.

Andrew

[Anonymous]

Here is a link to several definitions of attractive nuisance. 

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/attractive-nuisance

 

It does make the point that the principle is mostly applied to children, however, I don't know if there is a clearly drawn line for that stipulation.  So it is not clear if attractive nuisance could be applied to the 20-year-old woman in this case.  However, I would think that almost any railroad trestle would qualify as an attractive nuisance, especially the one in this case with its soaring height, attractive views, handy re-assuring walkway, declining number of trains, and rural location which makes anti-trespass relatively difficult to enforce.  Then add one impressive rope swing to that heady mix, and you have what surly must be an attractive nuisance.  Even the river itself, with its substantial current, adds its own considerable danger to the mix.    

[penncentral2002]

I'm beginning to think that the "attractive nuisance" part of the law was put in by the liquor lobby in order to "protect" their customers.

Attractive nuisance has nothing to do with drunkenness.  Drunkeness in the law is mainly explained by this quote from what may well be my favorite court opinion ever, Robinson v. Pioche Bayerque & Co, 5 Cal. 460 (1855) "if the defendants were at fault in leaving an uncovered hole in the sidewalk of a public street, the intoxication of the plaintiff cannot excuse such gross negligence.  A drunken man is as much entitled to a safe street as a sober one, and much more in need of it."

Attractive nuisance generally is more directed towards protecting children (seriously, the test is if it is something that would be attractive to children) - it would be directed more likely at something like an old abandoned quarry which has filled with water - there would be an affirmative duty if you were the property owner to keep people from swimming there.  Perhaps a bridge might qualify - but more likely if it was in a populated area than rural and was commonly used as a short cut.

The scenario about the lost people would be based on necessity - in a case of necessity (such as being lost in the woods and following the railroad tracks in hope of finding civilization) the trespass would be allowed but they would have to pay for any damages.

 

[Anonymous]

In looking at a picture of the bridge, posted by doublestack, the planking is rather substantial and their is a protective pipe railing along the walkway side. I would think there is much more to come out of this investigation beside a simple "missing" timber that created an opening large enough for someone to fall through.

Like most initial reports that seem to inevitably be woefully inaccurate, I await the followup.

The latest info from a Stillwater newspaper is she fell from the middle of the bridge onto an island 150 ft. below:

http://www.examiner.com/a-1531638~Woman_found_dead_at_foot_of_railroad_bridge.html

Another snippet from the Stillwater Gazette claims Washington County officials are now "looking at the death" as an accident (a rather uselessly-short write-up):

http://www.topix.com/city/stillwater-mn/2008/08/washington-county-officials-consider-death-of-woman-an-accident

There is a related link to a story in the Minneapolis Red Star Tribune that provides some background info.

[Modelcar]

....Impressive photos from Doublestack's post.  I come down on the side of opinion believing it's difficult to go along with the missing plank theory.  And agree with someone's post indicating if a missing plank did occur, it would be replaced pronto by the RR with regard to employee's using said space in their work routine...{possibly}.

That looks like a structure built to handle the job.  The arches are strengthened by all the triangles around it supporting it's shape and the wider stance at the bottom seems to provide great side support from {wind, etc...}.

[ChuckHawkins]

In looking at a picture of the bridge, posted by doublestack, the planking is rather substantial and their is a protective pipe railing along the walkway side. I would think there is much more to come out of this investigation beside a simple "missing" timber that created an opening large enough for someone to fall through.

Like most initial reports that seem to inevitably be woefully inaccurate, I await the followup.

[ButchKnouse]

I'm beginning to think that the "attractive nuisance" part of the law was put in by the liquor lobby in order to "protect" their customers.

[Anonymous]

As to the cause, anything is possible including murder and suicide, but it has been reported that a plank was missing on the walkway.  With a black, creosoted walkway in the middle of the night, I can see how someone could just step into the hole and be gone.  I suspect we will learn more about the missing plank. 

I doubt that just one out of hundreds of planks suddenly goes missing because of aging or deterioration.  This is heavy planking bolted to steel framing.  And I cannot see the railroad company allowing a plank to be missing much beyond the moment they discover the defect.  It would be a death trap for their emplyees as well as for trespassers. 

 

 

[zardoz]

Doublestack-

Thanks for those pics.  A very impressive bridge, indeed!  I must visit there some day.

[zardoz]

.....Last summer it seemed that drunks were fallin' down abandoned grain elevators in Minneapolis like lemmings over a cliff.....

....and there was a lot of blame heaped-on the owners of the properties by the media and relations of the "victims", not the BOOZED-UP MORONS that fell. 

+1

[eolafan]

Woman in a party of trespassers falls off bridge.  In anger and dismay, fellow trespasser finds a way to dislodge a plank, throws it in the river so that it cannot be retrieved, winks at loved ones and assures them it'll all be looked after.

This may be a cynical approach to the subject, but it really wouldn't surprise me.

It wouldn't surpries me either.

[Doublestack]

Its an impressive bridge.  I'm sure there is a great view from the middle, but not too bright of a place to tresspass.

Flying from MSP to Green Bay, if seated on the right hand side of the plane, you can see the  bridge, even from perhaps 10,000 feet up.  It really jumps out in the winter, mid-day, the shadow is very easy to pick up.   Very distinctive look to the bridge.

Here's a pic from a train going over the bridge.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=157341

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=2896

Also - if you click the photo on the Wikipedia page, it takes you to a very nice, larger version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soo_Line_High_Bridge

 

[greyhounds]

 

Some thoughts:

Attractive nuisance implies something that draws trespassers.  It does not forgive trespass, but stands as an extenuating circumstance that tends to offset the admonition to refrain from trespass.  I do not know about today, but in the past, the walkway was on one side of the track, and about three feet wide.  It was made of hardwood planking bolted to the steel bridge structure.  It was also accompanied by a very sturdy guardrail. 

The walkway was configured in a way that it would be easy to clear a passing train.  This quite spectacular bridge in the relatively undeveloped country invites trespass.  There is a history of the Soo aggressively enforcing a no-trespass policy on the bridge.  

You see, this is the problem.

"They were invited to trespass."  Sure, the signs said "No Trespassing", but there's an extenuating circumstance.  You see, there's such a nice view from the bridge.

This is a lawyers' trick to get around the absolute meaning of the word "No" in the "No Trespassing" signs.  Since it's obvious that no one would trespass if there wasn't some reason to do so that was "attractive" to them, lawyers can use this doublespeak to intruduce the comparative negligence silliness.  And to get some of the defendant's money. 

CN, get out your checkbook.  In our legal system "No" doesn't mean "No".  It's more of a suggestion.

[Ulrich]

Hopefully the law enforcement people won't jump to the conclusion that this young lady committed suicide or was simply a victim of her own carelessness. Murder is always a possibility...someone could have drugged her, raped her maybe , and then thrown her over..It is possible. Hopefully someone will stand up and fight for her now to at least get at the truth..

[Anonymous]

 

Some thoughts:

Attractive nuisance implies something that draws trespassers.  It does not forgive trespass, but stands as an extenuating circumstance that tends to offset the admonition to refrain from trespass.  I do not know about today, but in the past, the walkway was on one side of the track, and about three feet wide.  It was made of hardwood planking bolted to the steel bridge structure.  It was also accompanied by a very sturdy guardrail. 

The walkway was configured in a way that it would be easy to clear a passing train.  This quite spectacular bridge in the relatively undeveloped country invites trespass.  There is a history of the Soo aggressively enforcing a no-trespass policy on the bridge.  

The term "attractive nuisance" has some local applicability.  Last summer it seemed that drunks were fallin' down abandoned grain elevators in Minneapolis like lemmings over a cliff, and there was a lot of blame heaped-on the owners of the properties by the media and relations of the "victims", not the BOOZED-UP MORONS that fell.  Now, an abandoned grain elevator seems to have lost its usefulness and should've been torn-down, and obviously the CN bridge is vital, but rest assured CN will get a lot of undeserved blame for this latest incident.

Also, for additional info, according to my handy CN Wisconsin Division Timetable #2, the speed restriction on that bridge is 25 MPH.

[Anonymous]

 

This could have very easily been a double fatality - what if a train came across the bridge? I am sure both would have jumped.

People trespass on this bridge knowing that if a train shows up, they will not have to jump to avoid being hit by it.  Granted, people do trespass on bridges where they likely will not be cleared by trains, and where they cannot possibly outrun those trains, but that is not the case with the bridge in this story.

[Railroader_Sailor_SSN-760]

Yet another case of someone being stupid and getting what they deserved.

One of the factors in this is how our culture treats breaking the rules - as if they are only suggestions. 

This could have very easily been a double fatality - what if a train came across the bridge? I am sure both would have jumped.

This is just another example of how the Stoopid need to be protected from themselves.

I propose that we make a zoo to contain the Stoopids, complete with shock collars to teach them the same way that disobedient dogs are corrected.

This reminds me of an article in a recent issue of Trains, making mention of how people that have done stupid things (i.e. try to beat trains to a crossing) are the focus of the media, and how the railroaders that are affected by the Stoopids being stupid are brushed aside.

Help control the Stoopid Population by spaying or neutering your Stoopid today!

[selector]

I can see this side of the argument.  Suppose they had been stranded, somehow having found themselves on the 'wrong' side of the river/ravine, late at night, and the only handy way across the obstacle was via the handy bridge.  It would still be willful trespass, but if they were in a bad way, even a pinch, taking reasonable access might be the key point in a lawsuit.  Had the company barred the exits at each end so that people would have to scale a 6' gate or something, that might be good enough.

It's all speculation, though...  Still a very sad time for the families. 

[Anonymous]

 

Some thoughts:

Attractive nuisance implies something that draws trespassers.  It does not forgive trespass, but stands as an extenuating circumstance that tends to offset the admonition to refrain from trespass.  I do not know about today, but in the past, the walkway was on one side of the track, and about three feet wide.  It was made of hardwood planking bolted to the steel bridge structure.  It was also accompanied by a very sturdy guardrail. 

The walkway was configured in a way that it would be easy to clear a passing train.  This quite spectacular bridge in the relatively undeveloped country invites trespass.  There is a history of the Soo aggressively enforcing a no-trespass policy on the bridge.  

[edblysard]

Come on guys, it is a 2600 foot long, 180 foot high steel arch bridge with a side walkway just wide enough for a single person.

These walkways are not intended for daily or regular use, it is there for emergency use in case the train crew needs to walk the train.

I would have a problem walking it sober, even if I worked for that railroad...the kids had no business being up there, if a train comes along while you are there, you would be hard pressed to stay standing.

As for a missing plank, most of the walkways are made of wooden planks, treated with creosote and bolted to the walkway supports...considering the little frequency any railroad employee would walk on it, and therefore report it, I am surprised if there is only one missing.

 

This isn't an attractive nuisance, access to the bridge and crossing the bridge would require dedicated intent by the trespasser.

I am sorry the girl fell and died, but she and her friend had no business being up there.

[Anonymous]

It raises all those liability questions that we talked about in that other thread.  I don't know how an attractive nuisance is defined, but I'll bet that bridge would come close. 

[Ulrich]

Not at the bridge in particular...but system wide in general. Well...if it were my bridge or a bridge that I was responsible for...a missing plank would be my cue to check it out further...sometimes where there's smoke there's fire.

[Modelcar]

....What else has happened at the bridge recently....?

[Ulrich]

Who knows if it was a suicide...someone could have thrown her over/through the bridge...we just don't know. From a commonsense standpoint I don't think the railroad should be held responsible...however my concern is that the bridge itself may be (I say may not IS) in a state of disrepair. Given other incidents over the last year or two a look at that bridge might be in order.

[CShaveRR]

I'm sure that's already been done...but looking at the bigger picture...if a plank is missing then what else may be missing...maybe something that could affect the safe movement of a train across the bridge?

That's almost as big a jump as the woman made (whether she intended to or not).  Based on the article, it can be inferred that this person ignored no-trespassing signs, and just likely may not have been sober.  Does the no-trespassing sign have to explain that a bridge 185 feet above the ground may have hazardous footing?  People--railroad employees--who need to know about a missing plank may have been apprised of it with a bulletin or order either warning of hazardous footing or removing the walkway from service.

I'm sorry for her friends and relatives, but a death such as this is a suicide, whether she wanted one or not.