My understanding is that yes, even someone who is trespassing may be able to successfully sue if they are injured. Usually the injured party's claim is that there were not adequate fences, signs etc. warning of the danger.
Payouts are not up to the judge. They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury.
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
A landowner can be found liable for injuries to trespassers arising from hazards on the landowner’s property. It is not just confined to railroad property, and it is not just a matter of stupid people on juries. There are legal principles involved. You cannot have a booby trap in your yard, and then make the case that if anybody gets hurt; it is automatically their fault because they were trespassing in your yard. It may seem like you could make that case, but you can’t.
ButchKnouse Payouts are not up to the judge. They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury.
It seems that we are living in a very 'Litigious' Society and time. Good for lawyers, not so for the rest of society.
Most anyone or any company has a lawyer or lawyers or even a whole legal staff at their beck and call. I used to be employed by a medium sized trucking company (operated about 2000 power units).
Each day the mail would bring in two to three notices to sue the company, and more threatening letters to do the same. I'd bet that it has not gotten any better. Contengency Lawsuits have a pretty good record for settlement- which means the lawyer gets a third to half of the $$$$$$. That's what lawyers do, they file suits or threats to. Settlements are sometimes made to just make someone go away (and take their lawyer with them) and move on. It is almost an accounting function, to cut down on expenses for lawyers time and energies to settlw without a court hearing. As stasted above by Butch Knouse juries can seeming award for no particular reason or guide line.
BucyrusA landowner can be found liable for injuries to trespassers arising from hazards on the landowner’s property. It is not just confined to railroad property, and it is not just a matter of stupid people on juries. There are legal principles involved. You cannot have a booby trap in your yard, and then make the case that if anybody gets hurt; it is automatically their fault because they were trespassing in your yard. It may seem like you could make that case, but you can’t.
ButchKnouse They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury.
They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury.
Makes it crystal clear why they don't want unauthorized people on their property.
zardoz ButchKnouse They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury. Jury: Twelve people not smart enough to figure out a way of avoiding their civic duty.
It sounds like you have not tried to get out of jury duty lately...
zardozButchKnouse They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury. Jury: Twelve people not smart enough to figure out a way of avoiding their civic duty.
Sounds like neither of you have any appreciation of history [the Magna Carta and the US Constitution] and what a break it was for the common man to get the civil right to a trial by a jury of his/her peers.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
In many cases it never makes it to the jury - which is why it's so lucrative to sue in the first place.
With lawyers taking cases on contingency (a percentage of the award), there is no disincentive to suing - on the odd chance your case gets thrown out of court, you're out next to nothing.
When a company compares the cost of settling out of court to fighting the claim at trial, settling is often the cheaper solution. So they do. The "injured" gets their award, the lawyer gets his/her cut, and the defendent hopes their insurance company doesn't jack up their rate.
Until there's a potential penalty for filing lawsuits that are frivilous or otherwise without merit (ie, "loser pays), this trend will continue.
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...
Sawtooth500 I think it's ridiculous that people would sue the RR if they are clearly at fault themselves, but what legal precedent have the courts handed down? Has it really gotten to the point where people can sue the RR for injuries when it was clearly their own fault and actually win?
You can sue anybody for any reason, ..actual guilt takes a back seat to the suing attorney's ability to convince the jury that a harm justifying relief has transpired.
Since the money is not coming out of the jurists pockets, they tend to look at the sued's ability to pay, and the aggrieved "victims" pitifulness before awarding judgment with their hearts, not their head
As they say, anyone with the filing fee can file a suit, regardless of merit, unless, for instance, they have been declared a vexatious litigant (it happens). That being said, most groundless lawsuits do not make it to a jury because of something called summary adjudication or summary judgment which clears the case out early.
A couple of cases out here involving UP are good examples.
Christoff v. UPRR resulted in summary judgment dismissing the case. From the first paragraph of the appellate court opinion: "Plaintiff Steven J. Christoff appeals from summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific), in plaintiff’s action alleging he was injured by a passing train while walking across a railroad bridge. Plaintiff contends triable issues exist regarding duty to warn and duty to remedy a danger. We shall affirm the judgment." (C047961, unpublished opinion dated 10/27/05.)
Similarly, Lindsley v. UPRR resulted in summary judgment which the court upheld, again in an unpublished opinion which began: "Plaintiff Eric Lindsley sued the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the Santa Cruz Seaside Company, and the City of Santa Cruz for personal injuries he sustained while bicycling across the San Lorenzo Trestle Bridge (Bridge) in Santa Cruz. Lindsley alleged a single cause of action against Defendants for premises liability based upon a dangerous condition of the Bridge. The trial court granted Defendants summary judgment.
"On appeal, Lindsley argues that the court erred in granting summary judgment to Seaside because Seaside owns the property where his accident occurred or exercised control over the property. He also contends there are triable issues whether the accident occurred on Seaside’s property and whether Seaside maintained or controlled the Bridge and was therefore liable for his injuries. Lindsley asserts that the court erred in granting summary judgment to the City because there were triable issues of fact whether the walkway on the Bridge was the proximate cause of his accident and whether the walkway was a dangerous condition under Government Code1 section 830. Finally, Lindsley argues that the court erred in granting summary judgment to the Railroad because he produced substantial evidence of reasonable safety measures that should have been taken by the Railroad prior to his accident. We find no error and affirm the summary judgment for all three defendants." (H030587, unpublished opinion dated 7/9/08.)
It should noted that in California, when an appeals court does not certify an opinion for publication, it means that there is no stunning legal issue involved...it's all well-settled law. That, of course, does not stop lawyers from trying to get one past the judge.
An interesting snip from a case cited as a precedent is the following: “A railroad track upon which trains are constantly run is itself a warning to any person who has reached years of discretion, and who is possessed of ordinary intelligence, that it is not safe to walk upon it, or near enough to it to be struck by a passing train . . . .” this is from California Supreme Court case in 1893. Of course, "ordinary intelligence" seems to be on the path to true oxymoron status, much like "common sense" and similar concepts.
That being said, ridiculous or not, so long as there are lawyers willing to take the gamble of a big payoff on a cheesy case, these lawsuits will continue. Adopting the English rule requiring unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay the reasonable attorney fees and other costs incurred by defendants (it may be reciprocal, I don't know for sure) and making those awards joint and several among plaintiffs and their counsel would probably slow some of this down. Whether that is the best way to deal with the problem, I do not know, though it is an appealing concept.
Gabe? Thoughts?
Is there any law or legal reason why the winning defendent in lawsuits cannot countersue for legal costs incurred because of the original lawsuit?
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
schlimmzardozButchKnouse They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury. Jury: Twelve people not smart enough to figure out a way of avoiding their civic duty. Sounds like neither of you have any appreciation of history [the Magna Carta and the US Constitution] and what a break it was for the common man to get the civil right to a trial by a jury of his/her peers.
The question I would like to pose, and perhaps it can be answered by our resident attorney, is who constitute our peers? IOW, is it fair to have a jury of people totally composed of people who have absolutely no knowledge of railroading, or would it be more fair to have some on the jury who do?
In my case; aviation, a jury who knows nothing about airplanes would be more likely to award a verdict based on their lack of knowledge than would one with a few people who do. Seems to me the use of peremptory challenges contributes to an advantage for the complainant.
I take full responsibility for my own actions, but don't think I would get a fair trial given the way juries are selected these days. That's probably why the railroads settle rather than taking a chance of a large damages award from an uninformed jury.
Norm
Since we don't have a legally recognized class system like the UK, for jury purposes our peers are any United States Citizen.
No one dislikes lawyers and what they've done to riding trains, going to amusement parks, and the the like, more than I do. BUT, to say that juries are full of idiots, or that "smart" people get out of jury duty, offends my sense of American civic duty. We need juries and being on one is part of the price we pay for living in America. So, man-up to it and stop ridiculing a legal defense that took centuries of sacrifice to guarantee to citizens.
That said, I agree that we could learn a lot from our British cousins by making losing parties in a lawsuit pay costs of the winning party. We could also close half the law schools in the country and stop turning out so darned many unneeded lawyers, who then look for "work" everywhere.
George Will once wrote about a small city-state in ancient Greece that had a rule I like: If any citizen proposed a law in the agora that was voted upon but not passed, he was put to death. I bet that discouraged unnecessary legislation!
Let's not forget that it was railroads that made attorneys hated by the general public. For example, the 14th Amendment, made to help newly freed slaves, has for most of its life been used, first by railroads, to trample the rights of the small guy. Don't believe it? Read some history concerning corporations and their lawyers.
As far as juries being "stupid," maybe they are just swayed by the better lawyer. If you go to trial, have the better lawyer.
Norm48327schlimmzardozButchKnouse They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury. Jury: Twelve people not smart enough to figure out a way of avoiding their civic duty. Sounds like neither of you have any appreciation of history [the Magna Carta and the US Constitution] and what a break it was for the common man to get the civil right to a trial by a jury of his/her peers. The question I would like to pose, and perhaps it can be answered by our resident attorney, is who constitute our peers? IOW, is it fair to have a jury of people totally composed of people who have absolutely no knowledge of railroading, or would it be more fair to have some on the jury who do? In my case; aviation, a jury who knows nothing about airplanes would be more likely to award a verdict based on their lack of knowledge than would one with a few people who do. Seems to me the use of peremptory challenges contributes to an advantage for the complainant.I take full responsibility for my own actions, but don't think I would get a fair trial given the way juries are selected these days. That's probably why the railroads settle rather than taking a chance of a large damages award from an uninformed jury.
I am debasing myself just by responding to this thread. To say that the forum has lost a step or two over the years is an understatement, and this thread is indicative thereof.
Call me as an attorney greedy or stupid all you want, I don't really care what you think about me. But, do not call jurors stupid. You have no idea what you are talking about.This thread rivals the white boxcars with shackles threads in terms of overall ignorance:
The thread starts by referring to an unidentified lawsuit, that the poster cannot even confirm the details of the injury much less if the plaintiff prevailed therein. From that insightful excerpt, other contributors start criticizing the intelligence of juries, again without stating so much as an example of a jury that decided a case poorly. Then--my personal favorite--someone states how cheap it is to file a contingency-based lawsuit, so you do not have to have a valid claim before filing. Finally, the claim that Defendants settle cases simply to avoid litigation costs is an absolute knee-slapping joke. That might have been a factor that might have increased the value of settlements during the 1980s--but those times are long gone.
Do you have any idea how expensive it is to run a contingency-based lawsuit? Any? Nevermind the fact that an attorney and client can be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit, I have yet to run into a lawfirm that has the money to burn by taking a case that is frivolous with knowledge thereof.
Moreover, do you really believe Defendants settle a case for $350,000 to avoid attorney's fees when it would only cost $70,000-$90,000 to litigate it?
Of course, like any system, the court system is not perfect, mistakes are made, and sometimes an individual plaintiff is over compensated. But, I will gaurantee you for every plaintiff that is overcompensated or receives a settlement based upon the nuisance value of a lawsuit, there are two plaintiffs that have very legitimate claims and get railroaded.
Do me a favor, the next time one of you know-it-alls gets injured as a result of the fault of another and you show up thinking you have a winning lottery ticket only to realize after five years of litigation, you are not going to receive 1/3 of what it would take to make you whole and return your life to normal, know there is someone else laughing at you other than me--an insurance company that will make record profits by using the ignorance underlying this thread against the same people who facilitate such ignorance.
If attorneys were in it just for the money, they would have went to business school rather than lawschool. If they were in it just for guaranteed money, their business specialty would be insurance.
Gabe
P.S. Disclaimer: although I think the above-cited attitude provides an unjustified advantage to insurance companies, I am not otherwise criticizing insurance companies.
P.P.S. By the way, civil jurys usually have six rather than twelve jurors. One would think you would know how many sit in the box before bombastically calling them stupid.
Thank you Gabe. It is refreshing to hear someone knowledgeable on this forum for a change instead of the typical politically-informed nonsense.
gabe I am debasing myself just by responding to this thread. To say that the forum has lost a step or two over the years is an understatement, and this thread is indicative thereof. Call me as an attorney greedy or stupid all you want, I don't really care what you think about me. But, do not call jurors stupid. You have no idea what you are talking about.This thread rivals the white boxcars with shackles threads in terms of overall ignorance: The thread starts by referring to an unidentified lawsuit, that the poster cannot even confirm the details of the injury much less if the plaintiff prevailed therein. From that insightful excerpt, other contributors start criticizing the intelligence of juries, again without stating so much as an example of a jury that decided a case poorly. Then--my personal favorite--someone states how cheap it is to file a contingency-based lawsuit, so you do not have to have a valid claim before filing. Finally, the claim that Defendants settle cases simply to avoid litigation costs is an absolute knee-slapping joke. That might have been a factor that might have increased the value of settlements during the 1980s--but those times are long gone. Do you have any idea how expensive it is to run a contingency-based lawsuit? Any? Nevermind the fact that an attorney and client can be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit, I have yet to run into a lawfirm that has the money to burn by taking a case that is frivolous with knowledge thereof. Moreover, do you really believe Defendants settle a case for $350,000 to avoid attorney's fees when it would only cost $70,000-$90,000 to litigate it? Of course, like any system, the court system is not perfect, mistakes are made, and sometimes an individual plaintiff is over compensated. But, I will gaurantee you for every plaintiff that is overcompensated or receives a settlement based upon the nuisance value of a lawsuit, there are two plaintiffs that have very legitimate claims and get railroaded. Do me a favor, the next time one of you know-it-alls gets injured as a result of the fault of another and you show up thinking you have a winning lottery ticket only to realize after five years of litigation, you are not going to receive 1/3 of what it would take to make you whole and return your life to normal, know there is someone else laughing at you other than me--an insurance company that will make record profits by using the ignorance underlying this thread against the same people who facilitate such ignorance. If attorneys were in it just for the money, they would have went to business school rather than lawschool. If they were in it just for guaranteed money, their business specialty would be insurance. Gabe P.S. Disclaimer: although I think the above-cited attitude provides an unjustified advantage to insurance companies, I am not otherwise criticizing insurance companies. P.P.S. By the way, civil jurys usually have six rather than twelve jurors. One would think you would know how many sit in the box before bombastically calling them stupid.
You go Dude!
By the way Norm, both sides get equal challenges on juror selection, so you most often end up with a fairly matched group.
Any anyone who thinks getting out of jury duty is smart has never needed a jury, so...
Anyone of you folks come up with a better system, lets hear it.
Having lived in other countries and seen their legal systems in person, I can unequivocally state that every citizen of the US lives under the protection of one of the few legal systems that presumes innocence, and places the burden of proof of a crime on the state in criminal, and presumes innocence on the part of a defendant, requiring a plaintiff to produce proof of harm on negligence..
God forbid anyone of you ever have to go to court in South America...most systems there consider the fact you were charged with a crime as proof of guilt, it really is up to you to prove you are innocent.
23 17 46 11
Notes on jury service:
I would have no problem with the jury service system if the social responsibility for it were equally and fairly distributed. But it is not fairly distributed because there are a number of acceptable reasons to be excused from jury duty, and in my opinion, many of these reasons are rather frivolous and arbitrary. This means that the people who cannot be excused are bearing the extra burden of this social responsibility for the ones who are being excused.
Many small businesses and independent contractors are hanging by their fingernails in this economy. A two-week shut down of these enterprises, and/or the irretrievable loss of income that could very well be much larger than what is commensurate with the loss of two weeks; while others are excused by some rather whimsical and arbitrary privilege is something that is not acceptable in a country that values equality.
schlimm zardoz ButchKnouse They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury. Jury: Twelve people not smart enough to figure out a way of avoiding their civic duty. Sounds like neither of you have any appreciation of history [the Magna Carta and the US Constitution] and what a break it was for the common man to get the civil right to a trial by a jury of his/her peers.
You and I may not agree on a lot of things, but your comment is worth gold. It is part and parcel of the freedoms and rights we hold in the U.S. Are freedoms abused? Yes. Would we want less freedoms/rights to safeguard against those who would abuse our remaining freedoms/rights? No.
I have said elsewhere, Railroad carriers have very able Law Departments, and perhaps the best firms in the country on retainer. And there is no "fund" or "contingency" in a carriers budget for injuries and accidents. That comes right off the bottom line. Thus, Safety Pays.
Norm48327The question I would like to pose, and perhaps it can be answered by our resident attorney, is who constitute our peers? IOW, is it fair to have a jury of people totally composed of people who have absolutely no knowledge of railroading, or would it be more fair to have some on the jury who do? In my case; aviation, a jury who knows nothing about airplanes would be more likely to award a verdict based on their lack of knowledge than would one with a few people who do. Seems to me the use of peremptory challenges contributes to an advantage for the complainant. I take full responsibility for my own actions, but don't think I would get a fair trial given the way juries are selected these days. That's probably why the railroads settle rather than taking a chance of a large damages award from an uninformed jury.
Your job as an attorney, is to represent the facts in a case, and by doing so, educate the jury on what is, and is not proper. But then it goes back to the presiding Judge's instructions to that jury, "Is there sufficient evidence to find X Corporation guilty of neglect, negligence, or wanton behavior?" (or whatever the question of the case may be).
Think like it is the jury members first day on the planet earth. Mold their opinions and understanding of the relevant facts of the case, what is proper care and reasonable precaution. And prepare against what the other attorney will offer as evidence.
gabe I am debasing myself just by responding to this thread. To say that the forum has lost a step or two over the years is an understatement, and this thread is indicative thereof.
I am not sure you are debasing yourself Gabe. Education takes time. To learn facts, to examine issues, or form an opinion. Thirty second sound bites, or a two paragraph article in a news paper does not give you enough information to think at all. Yet today, that is the standard Gabe. There is little insight into the whats and whys.
I use as an example, an article run in the South-town Economist in suburban Chicago in the 1980's. Small paper, limited resources. Took a press release, and ran with it as fact. It concerned CSX at Barr Yard. It was produced by an organization run by the ATA (did not have time to dig around for it). The purported facts were that CSX allowed dumping on it's properties at Barr, and further polluted the surrounding area. What was unwritten was that CSX, just that spring had spent $1.8 million to clean up dumping and waste on it's property, and surrounding area.
Until I called the newspaper, the chap who had the byline, had never heard of the ATA, nor the fact that earlier that year, CSX had issued press releases about their clean up. It was pretty sad back then, and now, for someone to grab something off the wire, and paste it onto the days layout, is a forgone conclusion. They don't even check most times.
Thus, we are a society who does not take the time to be educated, even in the facets of our interests.
Many well stated opinions/positions above, but one issue has not been adressed:
Why do so many plaintiffs attorney's seek to file their suits in specifec judicial venues?
They must have a reason and it appears to be the jury pool. Comments welcomed.
Given what I said of the regard I hold jurors, you might be surprised that I am telling you this secret. But, my view is, if your civic duty is not enough to make you show up and take jury duty seriously, then you really do not belong there--and you have no business complaining about what jurors do.
Anyway, if you really want to get out of jury duty, legally, here is how you do it. It is a little-known rule, but most states allow jurors to ask questions. Just tell both lawyers how much you are looking forward to asking the witnesses questions--they will not be able to find a way to get you out of there fast enough. No lawyer wants someone other than him doing the questioning.
diningcarMany well stated opinions/positions above, but one issue has not been adressed: Why do so many plaintiffs attorney's seek to file their suits in specifec judicial venues? They must have a reason and it appears to be the jury pool. Comments welcomed.
Short answer is, it is their job. You take the best venue you can get. That having been said, you raise a legitimate under point. It is not fair that one court system will give one plaintiff nothing and give another plaintiff all the money in the world.
That having been said, for some reason, people do not realize that this goes both ways. Defendants have cases removed all the time, sometimes plaintiffs are stuck in particular jurisdictions that are Defendant friendly. Is it any less fair to a plaintiff that has to litigate in a jurisdiction that is pro-Defendant than it is for a Defendant to have to litigate in a jurisdiction that is pro-Plaintiff?
However, even jurisdiction is not what it used to be twenty years ago. Take Madison County, Illinois for example. It is still a pro-Plaintiff forum, but they have gone a long way toward changing some things. Plus, your bigger cases now days tend to be in federal court, and such courts are not as mercurial as the various state courts.
RRKenschlimm zardoz ButchKnouse They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury. Jury: Twelve people not smart enough to figure out a way of avoiding their civic duty. Sounds like neither of you have any appreciation of history [the Magna Carta and the US Constitution] and what a break it was for the common man to get the civil right to a trial by a jury of his/her peers. You and I may not agree on a lot of things, but your comment is worth gold. It is part and parcel of the freedoms and rights we hold in the U.S. Are freedoms abused? Yes. Would we want less freedoms/rights to safeguard against those who would abuse our remaining freedoms/rights? No. I have said elsewhere, Railroad carriers have very able Law Departments, and perhaps the best firms in the country on retainer. And there is no "fund" or "contingency" in a carriers budget for injuries and accidents. That comes right off the bottom line. Thus, Safety Pays.
Don't get me wrong, my love of trains causes me to lean toward favoring railroads in most lawsuits. Nonetheless, feeling sorry for a railroad in a court room is like feeling sorry for Andre the Giant during a wrestling match. They never hurt for the ability to retain quality representation--where do you think the term "railroaded" came from?Gabe
gabeGiven what I said of the regard I hold jurors, you might be surprised that I am telling you this secret. But, my view is, if your civic duty is not enough to make you show up and take jury duty seriously, then you really do not belong there--and you have no business complaining about what jurors do.Anyway, if you really want to get out of jury duty, legally, here is how you do it. It is a little-known rule, but most states allow jurors to ask questions. Just tell both lawyers how much you are looking forward to asking the witnesses questions--they will not be able to find a way to get you out of there fast enough. No lawyer wants someone other than him doing the questioning.Gabe
What about people that can't take the financial hardship that serving on a jury can result in? Some people just can't lose several days (weeks) of wages for what? $2.34 a day?
My personal opinion is that many courthouses should actually be moved out of cities, but that is not really relevant to this post...
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
zugmanngabeGiven what I said of the regard I hold jurors, you might be surprised that I am telling you this secret. But, my view is, if your civic duty is not enough to make you show up and take jury duty seriously, then you really do not belong there--and you have no business complaining about what jurors do.Anyway, if you really want to get out of jury duty, legally, here is how you do it. It is a little-known rule, but most states allow jurors to ask questions. Just tell both lawyers how much you are looking forward to asking the witnesses questions--they will not be able to find a way to get you out of there fast enough. No lawyer wants someone other than him doing the questioning.Gabe What about people that can't take the financial hardship that serving on a jury can result in? Some people just can't lose several days (weeks) of wages for what? $2.34 a day? My personal opinion is that many courthouses should actually be moved out of cities, but that is not really relevant to this post...
gabe Given what I said of the regard I hold jurors, you might be surprised that I am telling you this secret. But, my view is, if your civic duty is not enough to make you show up and take jury duty seriously, then you really do not belong there--and you have no business complaining about what jurors do. Anyway, if you really want to get out of jury duty, legally, here is how you do it. It is a little-known rule, but most states allow jurors to ask questions. Just tell both lawyers how much you are looking forward to asking the witnesses questions--they will not be able to find a way to get you out of there fast enough. No lawyer wants someone other than him doing the questioning. Gabe
Gabe,
Several of us have made comments about juries and jury duty obligations, so I am not sure whom you are talking to. It is a common cliché that juries are composed of people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty. That, of course, is aimed at disrespecting the decisions that juries make. I have no concern about problems with the decisions that juries make. I don’t know how much of a problem it is. A lot of people seem to believe that it is a big problem.
I certainly don’t believe the jurors are stupid as a group characteristic. And if taken literally, the idea that juries are composed of people who are not smart enough to get out of it is complete nonsense. Unless you are blessed with one of the official excuses, the only way I know to get out of jury duty is to move to another state.
Your advice about answering questions by the attorneys in a way that causes them to reject you for a trial will not get you out of jury duty in my county. If you did happen to get rejected for one trial, you would just be sent back to the waiting room to wait for the next call for another trial. The obligation runs two weeks even if you get rejected from every trial along the way.
Bucyrus gabe Given what I said of the regard I hold jurors, you might be surprised that I am telling you this secret. But, my view is, if your civic duty is not enough to make you show up and take jury duty seriously, then you really do not belong there--and you have no business complaining about what jurors do. Anyway, if you really want to get out of jury duty, legally, here is how you do it. It is a little-known rule, but most states allow jurors to ask questions. Just tell both lawyers how much you are looking forward to asking the witnesses questions--they will not be able to find a way to get you out of there fast enough. No lawyer wants someone other than him doing the questioning. Gabe Gabe, Several of us have made comments about juries and jury duty obligations, so I am not sure whom you are talking to. It is a common cliché that juries are composed of people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty. That, of course, is aimed at disrespecting the decisions that juries make. I have no concern about problems with the decisions that juries make. I don’t know how much of a problem it is. A lot of people seem to believe that it is a big problem. I certainly don’t believe the jurors are stupid as a group characteristic. And if taken literally, the idea that juries are composed of people who are not smart enough to get out of it is complete nonsense. Unless you are blessed with one of the official excuses, the only way I know to get out of jury duty is to move to another state. Your advice about answering questions by the attorneys in a way that causes them to reject you for a trial will not get you out of jury duty in my county. If you did happen to get rejected for one trial, you would just be sent back to the waiting room to wait for the next call for another trial. The obligation runs two weeks even if you get rejected from every trial along the way.
Dan
CNW 6000 Bucyrus gabe Given what I said of the regard I hold jurors, you might be surprised that I am telling you this secret. But, my view is, if your civic duty is not enough to make you show up and take jury duty seriously, then you really do not belong there--and you have no business complaining about what jurors do. Anyway, if you really want to get out of jury duty, legally, here is how you do it. It is a little-known rule, but most states allow jurors to ask questions. Just tell both lawyers how much you are looking forward to asking the witnesses questions--they will not be able to find a way to get you out of there fast enough. No lawyer wants someone other than him doing the questioning. Gabe Gabe, Several of us have made comments about juries and jury duty obligations, so I am not sure whom you are talking to. It is a common cliché that juries are composed of people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty. That, of course, is aimed at disrespecting the decisions that juries make. I have no concern about problems with the decisions that juries make. I don’t know how much of a problem it is. A lot of people seem to believe that it is a big problem. I certainly don’t believe the jurors are stupid as a group characteristic. And if taken literally, the idea that juries are composed of people who are not smart enough to get out of it is complete nonsense. Unless you are blessed with one of the official excuses, the only way I know to get out of jury duty is to move to another state. Your advice about answering questions by the attorneys in a way that causes them to reject you for a trial will not get you out of jury duty in my county. If you did happen to get rejected for one trial, you would just be sent back to the waiting room to wait for the next call for another trial. The obligation runs two weeks even if you get rejected from every trial along the way. I'll flip this question the other way then: how does one get picked for jury duty? I was told it was from the pool of registered voters. I registered to vote the day I turned 18 and have voted in every single election since then. I have never been selected or sent a letter. My wife, however, registered before the last Presidential election and has since received 3 notices and been selected once. I actually would like to experience Jury Duty to "do my part". Ideas?
You can call your jury office and volunteer if you want to serve. Otherwise, I have no idea what criteria they use for selection, and why some are selected often and others are never selected.
The details of jury service vary considerably from one district to another. Some release you after one trial selection. If the case happens to be dismissed before trial, you might end your obligation after one day.
My county requires you to stay for the entire two weeks--ten full days. It is downtown in a big city. You go there in rush hour and come home in rush hour. They reimburse for mileage, but at only about ¼ the actual cost. You park in a ramp 3-8 blocks away from the government center, and walk there. They have food vending machines. The pay was $30 per day, but it was just recently reduced to $10 per day. The pay just barely covers the cost of parking.
Some, but not all employers give their employees full pay while serving on jury duty. All local, county, state, and federal government employees are given full pay while on jury duty.
Keep in mind that the two-week obligation continues past two weeks if you get put on a trial that continues past that period. The entire ordeal could last many weeks if the trial runs that long. In certain trials, you could be sequestered by the court and spend the nights in a hotel.
Last fall, there was a newspaper article that said the county is having a hard time getting enough jurors. This is because people are simply refusing to serve because they are worried about losing their job if they vacate it for two weeks. Many employers do not compensate their employees while serving on jury duty, so the two-week obligation means a loss of two-week’s worth of pay. But the people refusing are not doing so because of the loss of pay.
In this lousy economy, employers are stressed to the limit. They can no more stand to lose an employee for two weeks than the employee can stand to lose the pay. So the employees are simply worried about losing their job and then not being able to find another one. The jury office tells them not to worry about that because it is against the law for their employers to fire them for vacating their job to perform jury service.
Well that’s fine and dandy, but there are loopholes in that assurance big enough to drive a truck through, and the employees see right through it. So they simply take a chance on prosecution and refuse jury duty. They weigh the risk and consequences of prosecution against the risk and consequences of losing their job, and the job wins.
On a similar note, this article details a suit going on here in Ohio.
http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-news/family-of-man-hit-by-train-suing-railroad-canoe-company-848161.html?cxtype=rss_local-news
choochoobuffOn a similar note, this article details a suit going on here in Ohio. http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-news/family-of-man-hit-by-train-suing-railroad-canoe-company-848161.html?cxtype=rss_local-news
$25,000!?! Suing Norfolk Southern for $25,000 is a losing proposition. It ain't worth it for the rings they will make you jump through. You couldn't guarantee me a $25,000 fee much less $25,000 recovery to sue Norfolk Southern.
gabe choochoobuff On a similar note, this article details a suit going on here in Ohio. http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-news/family-of-man-hit-by-train-suing-railroad-canoe-company-848161.html?cxtype=rss_local-news $25,000!?! Suing Norfolk Southern for $25,000 is a losing proposition. It ain't worth it for the rings they will make you jump through. You couldn't guarantee me a $25,000 fee much less $25,000 recovery to sue Norfolk Southern. Gabe
choochoobuff On a similar note, this article details a suit going on here in Ohio. http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-news/family-of-man-hit-by-train-suing-railroad-canoe-company-848161.html?cxtype=rss_local-news
It says "In Excess of $25,000". We don't know how much they're really seeking.
And this is the kind of legal action that makes many of us angry. They claim the NS didn't do its duty to equip the train will all necessary navigational and safety devices? This is making up the rules after the fact in an effort to grab some money.
I see it as a 21 year old putting himself in a place of danger, failing to take readily available action to remove himself from that danger, and getting killed. Now I see his mother and a lawyer trying to make money off that.
Legal actions such as this are a real detriment to our economic well being and they need to be prohibited in a way that doesn't remove the ability of someone with a real case to take legal action.
greyhounds gabe choochoobuff On a similar note, this article details a suit going on here in Ohio. http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-news/family-of-man-hit-by-train-suing-railroad-canoe-company-848161.html?cxtype=rss_local-news $25,000!?! Suing Norfolk Southern for $25,000 is a losing proposition. It ain't worth it for the rings they will make you jump through. You couldn't guarantee me a $25,000 fee much less $25,000 recovery to sue Norfolk Southern. Gabe Gabe, It says "In Excess of $25,000". We don't know how much they're really seeking. And this is the kind of legal action that makes many of us angry. They claim the NS didn't do its duty to equip the train will all necessary navigational and safety devices? This is making up the rules after the fact in an effort to grab some money. I see it as a 21 year old putting himself in a place of danger, failing to take readily available action to remove himself from that danger, and getting killed. Now I see his mother and a lawyer trying to make money off that. Legal actions such as this are a real detriment to our economic well being and they need to be prohibited in a way that doesn't remove the ability of someone with a real case to take legal action.
I must admit, you have me on one front: you have managed to contradict my statement of doubting that there are law firms with the money to burn on frivolous suits.
I will be curious to see whether this lawsuit--at least against NS--ever sees a jury, and I will be equally curious to see if NS lives up to its reputation in this one. I do not envy that attorney right now--he better hope he has both time and money to burn on this one.
I'm not sure what "navigational" device "should" have been on this train that would have prevented this needless incident from happening. Additionally, looking at the area in question (Acme Mapper Link) I would be asking why that spot to "jump off" on trips in the river when there appears to be navigable water access from the nearby George Rogers Clark Park just NW of the trestle or why they didn't choose any of the three nearby (NE from Trestle) road bridges to 'jump off'.
What is NS' reputation in cases that you allude to Gabe? TIA
CNW 6000 What is NS' reputation in cases that you allude to Gabe? TIA
Have you heard of Attila the Hun and Genghis Kahn? Panzies, I tell you.
Don't get me wrong, scorched-earth litigation doesn't scare me when I have a legitimate case, and it can (sometimes) backfire on a defendant when there is a legitimate claim. But, if your best closing argument starts out with "and now ladies and gentleman a tap dance," you are going to be in for a rough time of it going up against a company that is just waiting to stick the fire hose in your mouth and turn on the proverbial spicket.
Sawtooth500This whole NS bridge incident is just a great example of an idiot trying to skirt personal responsibility... nothing more, nothing less. Honestly, if I were the canoe company I'd be countersuing them for legal fees and wasting my time.
You may disagree with the law on this point--many do--but, the canoe company *may* have some liability here. Given their status, they have a pretty well recognized duty to--at the very least--warn their customers of a known danger. If they knew their customers were regularly using that bridge in such a manner, they probably had a duty to warn them not to undertake that danger.
That having been said, the canoe company is probably going to have a solid assumption of risk argument/defense--most intelligent people walking on a railroad bridge would know that there is a risk involved.
In any event, although my initial reaction to the NS suit was "frivolous" and the canoe company may well prevail, I don't think the suit against the canoe company is necessarily frivolous. I could certainly think of fact scenarios that the canoe company would have a rough time of it.
Worse still, the canoe company could be up the creek without a paddle--I was just waiting to use that line. If it knew its customers were regularly using NS' bridge and provided no admonishments or other efforts to get them to desist, the likely result of this is NS countersuing the canoe company. There is a canoe company owner right now that is very nervous and is hoping that his payments on his liability insurance did not make it into the mail late.
gabeSawtooth500This whole NS bridge incident is just a great example of an idiot trying to skirt personal responsibility... nothing more, nothing less. Honestly, if I were the canoe company I'd be countersuing them for legal fees and wasting my time. You may disagree with the law on this point--many do--but, the canoe company *may* have some liability hear. Given their status, they have a pretty well recognized duty to--at the very least--warn their customers of a known danger. If they knew their customers were regularly using that bridge in such a manner, they probably had a duty to warn them not to undertake that danger. That having been said, the canoe company is probably going to have a solid assumption of risk argument--most intelligent people walking on a train bridge would know that there is a risk involved. In any event, although my initial reaction to the NS suit was "frivolous" and the canoe company may well prevail, I don't think the suit against the canoe company is necessarily frivolous. I could certainly think of fact scenarios that the canoe company would have a rough time of it. Worse still, the canoe company could be up the creek without a paddle--I was just waiting to use that line. If it knew its customers were regularly using NS' bridge and provided no admonishments or other efforts to get them to desist, the likely result of this is NS countersuing the canoe company. There is a canoe company owner right now that is very nervous and is hoping that his payments on his liability insurance did not make it into the mail late. Gabe
You may disagree with the law on this point--many do--but, the canoe company *may* have some liability hear. Given their status, they have a pretty well recognized duty to--at the very least--warn their customers of a known danger. If they knew their customers were regularly using that bridge in such a manner, they probably had a duty to warn them not to undertake that danger.
That having been said, the canoe company is probably going to have a solid assumption of risk argument--most intelligent people walking on a train bridge would know that there is a risk involved.
Sawtooth500gabe Sawtooth500This whole NS bridge incident is just a great example of an idiot trying to skirt personal responsibility... nothing more, nothing less. Honestly, if I were the canoe company I'd be countersuing them for legal fees and wasting my time. You may disagree with the law on this point--many do--but, the canoe company *may* have some liability hear. Given their status, they have a pretty well recognized duty to--at the very least--warn their customers of a known danger. If they knew their customers were regularly using that bridge in such a manner, they probably had a duty to warn them not to undertake that danger. That having been said, the canoe company is probably going to have a solid assumption of risk argument--most intelligent people walking on a train bridge would know that there is a risk involved. In any event, although my initial reaction to the NS suit was "frivolous" and the canoe company may well prevail, I don't think the suit against the canoe company is necessarily frivolous. I could certainly think of fact scenarios that the canoe company would have a rough time of it. Worse still, the canoe company could be up the creek without a paddle--I was just waiting to use that line. If it knew its customers were regularly using NS' bridge and provided no admonishments or other efforts to get them to desist, the likely result of this is NS countersuing the canoe company. There is a canoe company owner right now that is very nervous and is hoping that his payments on his liability insurance did not make it into the mail late. Gabe This is a great example of where I disagree with the law and I think that tort reform is badly needed - just because you rent something to someone (especially a common, mundane item like a canoe, we're not talking about a flamethrower) you shouldn't have to be responsible for how that person uses that item. I really think it's ridiculous how our laws are written in a way that the canoe company could possibly be sued for this... Additionally the lawsuit says that the canoe company knew that people jumped off that bridge - I'm guessing if it actually goes to court the plaintiffs would have to prove that the canoe company actually had knowledge of the jumping.
gabe Sawtooth500This whole NS bridge incident is just a great example of an idiot trying to skirt personal responsibility... nothing more, nothing less. Honestly, if I were the canoe company I'd be countersuing them for legal fees and wasting my time. You may disagree with the law on this point--many do--but, the canoe company *may* have some liability hear. Given their status, they have a pretty well recognized duty to--at the very least--warn their customers of a known danger. If they knew their customers were regularly using that bridge in such a manner, they probably had a duty to warn them not to undertake that danger. That having been said, the canoe company is probably going to have a solid assumption of risk argument--most intelligent people walking on a train bridge would know that there is a risk involved. In any event, although my initial reaction to the NS suit was "frivolous" and the canoe company may well prevail, I don't think the suit against the canoe company is necessarily frivolous. I could certainly think of fact scenarios that the canoe company would have a rough time of it. Worse still, the canoe company could be up the creek without a paddle--I was just waiting to use that line. If it knew its customers were regularly using NS' bridge and provided no admonishments or other efforts to get them to desist, the likely result of this is NS countersuing the canoe company. There is a canoe company owner right now that is very nervous and is hoping that his payments on his liability insurance did not make it into the mail late. Gabe
I don't really have a position on this or agree or disagree with you. This kind of Tort law is not how I put food on my families' table and I hope not to be involved in this kind of tort . . .
But, the purpose of tort law is not to promote personal responsibility or to make poeple act in an intelligent manner. The purpose is to reduce the cost of accidents in society. If an owner of a business knows his customers are acting in a manner that has a substantial probability to cause an injury, tort law imposes a duty upon him to attempt to prevent that injury.
I would be surprised if all the tort reform in the world would nullify that maxim, as it is pretty well established. Tort reform is more aimed at minimizing the lawsuits that NS is currently experiencing.
Like I said, there are affirmative defenses, but--generally--when you know someone is using your services in a manner that might lead to injury and someone gets injured, you are not going to have an easy time of it.
gabeSawtooth500gabe Sawtooth500This whole NS bridge incident is just a great example of an idiot trying to skirt personal responsibility... nothing more, nothing less. Honestly, if I were the canoe company I'd be countersuing them for legal fees and wasting my time. You may disagree with the law on this point--many do--but, the canoe company *may* have some liability hear. Given their status, they have a pretty well recognized duty to--at the very least--warn their customers of a known danger. If they knew their customers were regularly using that bridge in such a manner, they probably had a duty to warn them not to undertake that danger. That having been said, the canoe company is probably going to have a solid assumption of risk argument--most intelligent people walking on a train bridge would know that there is a risk involved. In any event, although my initial reaction to the NS suit was "frivolous" and the canoe company may well prevail, I don't think the suit against the canoe company is necessarily frivolous. I could certainly think of fact scenarios that the canoe company would have a rough time of it. Worse still, the canoe company could be up the creek without a paddle--I was just waiting to use that line. If it knew its customers were regularly using NS' bridge and provided no admonishments or other efforts to get them to desist, the likely result of this is NS countersuing the canoe company. There is a canoe company owner right now that is very nervous and is hoping that his payments on his liability insurance did not make it into the mail late. Gabe This is a great example of where I disagree with the law and I think that tort reform is badly needed - just because you rent something to someone (especially a common, mundane item like a canoe, we're not talking about a flamethrower) you shouldn't have to be responsible for how that person uses that item. I really think it's ridiculous how our laws are written in a way that the canoe company could possibly be sued for this... Additionally the lawsuit says that the canoe company knew that people jumped off that bridge - I'm guessing if it actually goes to court the plaintiffs would have to prove that the canoe company actually had knowledge of the jumping. I don't really have a position on this or agree or disagree with you. This kind of Tort law is not how I put food on my families' table and I hope not to be involved in this kind of tort . . . But, the purpose of tort law is not to promote personal responsibility or to make poeple act in an intelligent manner. The purpose is to reduce the cost of accidents in society. If an owner of a business knows his customers are acting in a manner that has a substantial probability to cause an injury, tort law imposes a duty upon him to attempt to prevent that injury. I would be surprised if all the tort reform in the world would nullify that maxim, as it is pretty well established. Tort reform is more aimed at minimizing the lawsuits that NS is currently experiencing. Like I said, there are affirmative defenses, but--generally--when you know someone is using your services in a manner that might lead to injury and someone gets injured, you are not going to have an easy time of it. Gabe
Sawtooth500So the purpose of tort law is to reduce the cost of accidents to society... so then how does the canoe company getting sued reduce the cost of accidents to society?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingSawtooth500So the purpose of tort law is to reduce the cost of accidents to society... so then how does the canoe company getting sued reduce the cost of accidents to society? I'd guess that no matter what the outcome of this lawsuit is in regard to the canoe company, there will be warning signs at the canoe company. Maybe, even at all the canoe companies that read about the suit will do the same. If you don't believe me, look at the label on your iron that says "Do not iron clothes while you are wearing them"
Sawtooth500Ha - anyone stupid enough to iron their clothes while wearing them deserved to get burnt. It's really sad that are tort laws are written in such a way that iron manufacturers actually have to put that label on them...
If a canoe company knows that its customers are trespassing on the land of another and there is inherent danger involved with that trespass, I don't think it is at all unusual that the canoe company is charged with the duty of making reasonable attempts to see to it that its customers are adequately warned of the danger.
If canoe renters trespassing on the bridge were so common that the canoe rental outfit should have known about it, does it not follow that the NS should have also known about it?
And if the canoe rental outfit should be held liable for not warning canoe renters about the danger of trespassing on the bridge, should not NS also be held liable for not preventing people from trespassing on the bridge?
gabeBecause it gives the entity whose services led to the injury an incentive to make reasonable efforts to attempt to avoid injury.If a canoe company knows that its customers are trespassing on the land of another and there is inherent danger involved with that trespass, I don't think it is at all unusual that the canoe company is charged with the duty of making reasonable attempts to see to it that its customers are adequately warned of the danger. Gabe
Bucyrus If canoe renters trespassing on the bridge were so common that the canoe rental outfit should have known about it, does it not follow that the NS should have also known about it? And if the canoe rental outfit should be held liable for not warning canoe renters about the danger of trespassing on the bridge, should not NS also be held liable for not preventing people from trespassing on the bridge?
I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that NS has posted "Danger, No Trespassing" signs on or about the bridge. What would you do? Have a security guard patrol the bridge? Hang concertina wire? Put up gates?
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
jeaton Bucyrus If canoe renters trespassing on the bridge were so common that the canoe rental outfit should have known about it, does it not follow that the NS should have also known about it? And if the canoe rental outfit should be held liable for not warning canoe renters about the danger of trespassing on the bridge, should not NS also be held liable for not preventing people from trespassing on the bridge? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that NS has posted "Danger, No Trespassing" signs on or about the bridge. What would you do? Have a security guard patrol the bridge? Hang concertina wire? Put up gates?
Well, if it were up to me, I would not hold the canoe rental company or the NS liable for the death. But if you construct a case where the canoe rental company should have taken action because they knew about the hazard, then the same reasoning should apply to the NS as well.
If trespassing on the bridge was so common, it seems reasonable to conclude that NS should have known about it. And if they knew about it, they should have known that a sign was not preventing people from trespassing. So they had to know that there was a particularly high probability of somebody getting killed on that bridge.
It appears that many who have commented on this thread are quite ready to give up the right granted by our legal system allowing a person to sue for monetary damages anytime they feel they have been wronged by another party. All that because, so the argument goes, frivolous lawsuit and unreasonable settlements are a great burden on or society and economy.
As I understand the process now, there is a certain line of defense against frivolous suits proceeding in that first, a plaintiff's attorney can advise a potential client that the suit is without merit, and second, a judge can summarily dismiss a lawsuit on the same grounds. That doesn't always happen, but if and when such a case goes to trial, ordinary citizens sitting on a jury get to participate in the judgement of the merits of the case.
So it's cumbersome, but how would it change? In our system, the only entity that could establish rules restricting the filing of lawsuits without merit would be our government with the legislative branches passing the necessary laws.
Be careful what you wish for.
BucyrusIf canoe renters trespassing on the bridge were so common that the canoe rental outfit should have known about it, does it not follow that the NS should have also known about it? And if the canoe rental outfit should be held liable for not warning canoe renters about the danger of trespassing on the bridge, should not NS also be held liable for not preventing people from trespassing on the bridge?
First, the guy who died was an an invited guest for profit of the canoe company. Tort law imposes the highest duty for such people to take steps to avoid injury. Conversely, the guy's relationship to NS was that of a trespasser, which tort law imposes the lowest possible duty to take steps to avoid injury.
Thus, the canoe company will likely be charged with a high duty to protect the deceased whereas NS will likely be charged with a very low duty to protect the trespasser.
Second--and this defense may well absolve the canoe company--the law does not impose strict liability here. It only requires that a reasonable effort be made. If the canoe company admonished its customers not to trespass or otherwise use the bridge, it will--at the very least--have a defense against the lawsuit. NS will likely be held to even less--if any--of a burden.
To be clear, I am not saying the canoe company *IS* liable. I am merely contending that I could imagine a scenario in which it could be held liable--it knew its customers were engaging in health-threatening activity and did not take REASONABLE actions to protect its customers, like admonishing them not to trespass.
P.S. You guys are having a negative effect on me. I bought a big thing of drano and a small bottle of what I thought was drano to unclog my sink--thinking I did not need two big bottles. As it turns out the small bottle was meant to look like drano, probably so someone like me would buy it thinking it was drano.
I put both bottles in my sink not knowing they were two different chemicals. I am now typing this message from the hospital recovery room, and have a new empathy for WWI soldiers. Before you guys got a hold of me, I would have sued them. Now, I am just go to write a nasty letter to consumer reports--a lawsuit isn't worth the $2000 recovery I would get . . . .
jeatonI don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that NS has posted "Danger, No Trespassing" signs on or about the bridge. What would you do? Have a security guard patrol the bridge? Hang concertina wire? Put up gates?
jeatonIt appears that many who have commented on this thread are quite ready to give up the right granted by our legal system allowing a person to sue for monetary damages anytime they feel they have been wronged by another party. All that because, so the argument goes, frivolous lawsuit and unreasonable settlements are a great burden on or society and economy. As I understand the process now, there is a certain line of defense against frivolous suits proceeding in that first, a plaintiff's attorney can advise a potential client that the suit is without merit, and second, a judge can summarily dismiss a lawsuit on the same grounds. That doesn't always happen, but if and when such a case goes to trial, ordinary citizens sitting on a jury get to participate in the judgement of the merits of the case. So it's cumbersome, but how would it change? In our system, the only entity that could establish rules restricting the filing of lawsuits without merit would be our government with the legislative branches passing the necessary laws. Be careful what you wish for.
CNW 6000jeatonI don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that NS has posted "Danger, No Trespassing" signs on or about the bridge. What would you do? Have a security guard patrol the bridge? Hang concertina wire? Put up gates?There is a telling question there (to me anyway): what level of 'protection' is considered reasonable? Wouldn't there be a line when expenses related to prevention of trespassing becomes prohibitive? Or is that basically saying that "We didn't do X because it cost too much"? Around my area CN has a swing bridge that gets used as a fishing dock on a fairly regular basis. To my knowledge nobody's been hit...yet...and I've personally called folks in to the CN PD for trespass, especially when I know something's coming. There's about 6 signs on each side of the bridge that warn of the danger. It's even supposedly monitored by remote camera. Where's the line of "enough"?
Bucyrus jeaton Bucyrus If canoe renters trespassing on the bridge were so common that the canoe rental outfit should have known about it, does it not follow that the NS should have also known about it? And if the canoe rental outfit should be held liable for not warning canoe renters about the danger of trespassing on the bridge, should not NS also be held liable for not preventing people from trespassing on the bridge? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that NS has posted "Danger, No Trespassing" signs on or about the bridge. What would you do? Have a security guard patrol the bridge? Hang concertina wire? Put up gates? Well, if it were up to me, I would not hold the canoe rental company or the NS liable for the death. But if you construct a case where the canoe rental company should have taken action because they knew about the hazard, then the same reasoning should apply to the NS as well. If trespassing on the bridge was so common, it seems reasonable to conclude that NS should have known about it. And if they knew about it, they should have known that a sign was not preventing people from trespassing. So they had to know that there was a particularly high probability of somebody getting killed on that bridge.
It seems to me that it is fairly well established that signs warning of danger and posting no trespassing either relieve or significantly mitigate liability for injury to an individual who ignores the signs. If that is situation in this case, and other facts presented in evidence show that all appropriate warnings were made, and in the absence of other considerations, then the plaintiff's suit may not be successful. If it goes to trial, 6 ordinary citizens on a jury may come to the same conclusion that you have.
Is that a problem?
Sawtooth500jeaton It appears that many who have commented on this thread are quite ready to give up the right granted by our legal system allowing a person to sue for monetary damages anytime they feel they have been wronged by another party. All that because, so the argument goes, frivolous lawsuit and unreasonable settlements are a great burden on or society and economy. As I understand the process now, there is a certain line of defense against frivolous suits proceeding in that first, a plaintiff's attorney can advise a potential client that the suit is without merit, and second, a judge can summarily dismiss a lawsuit on the same grounds. That doesn't always happen, but if and when such a case goes to trial, ordinary citizens sitting on a jury get to participate in the judgement of the merits of the case. So it's cumbersome, but how would it change? In our system, the only entity that could establish rules restricting the filing of lawsuits without merit would be our government with the legislative branches passing the necessary laws. Be careful what you wish for. I am clear what I wish for. Sure, someone could file a frivolous lawsuit against you and yeah you can get it thrown out in court. But in the meanwhile you are going to expend time and money on your part - and as someone who runs a small business I can attest that many small businesses (like I'm assuming that canoe rental is) don't have the resources to defend themselves - and even the cost of a defense of a frivolous lawsuit could run them into the ground.
jeaton It appears that many who have commented on this thread are quite ready to give up the right granted by our legal system allowing a person to sue for monetary damages anytime they feel they have been wronged by another party. All that because, so the argument goes, frivolous lawsuit and unreasonable settlements are a great burden on or society and economy. As I understand the process now, there is a certain line of defense against frivolous suits proceeding in that first, a plaintiff's attorney can advise a potential client that the suit is without merit, and second, a judge can summarily dismiss a lawsuit on the same grounds. That doesn't always happen, but if and when such a case goes to trial, ordinary citizens sitting on a jury get to participate in the judgement of the merits of the case. So it's cumbersome, but how would it change? In our system, the only entity that could establish rules restricting the filing of lawsuits without merit would be our government with the legislative branches passing the necessary laws. Be careful what you wish for.
I also have a small business, but I have found it reasonably economical to establish defensive measures to prevent the costs of any lawsuits, with or without merit, from running me into the ground. One does have to be proactive.
On the other hand, if you don't mind the government establishing more rules as to what you can or cannot do, go for it.
jeatonBucyrus jeaton Bucyrus If canoe renters trespassing on the bridge were so common that the canoe rental outfit should have known about it, does it not follow that the NS should have also known about it? And if the canoe rental outfit should be held liable for not warning canoe renters about the danger of trespassing on the bridge, should not NS also be held liable for not preventing people from trespassing on the bridge? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that NS has posted "Danger, No Trespassing" signs on or about the bridge. What would you do? Have a security guard patrol the bridge? Hang concertina wire? Put up gates? Well, if it were up to me, I would not hold the canoe rental company or the NS liable for the death. But if you construct a case where the canoe rental company should have taken action because they knew about the hazard, then the same reasoning should apply to the NS as well. If trespassing on the bridge was so common, it seems reasonable to conclude that NS should have known about it. And if they knew about it, they should have known that a sign was not preventing people from trespassing. So they had to know that there was a particularly high probability of somebody getting killed on that bridge. It seems to me that it is fairly well established that signs warning of danger and posting no trespassing either relieve or significantly mitigate liability for injury to an individual who ignores the signs. If that is situation in this case, and other facts presented in evidence show that all appropriate warnings were made, and in the absence of other considerations, then the plaintiff's suit may not be successful. If it goes to trial, 6 ordinary citizens on a jury may come to the same conclusion that you have. Is that a problem?
CNW 6000 jeatonI don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that NS has posted "Danger, No Trespassing" signs on or about the bridge. What would you do? Have a security guard patrol the bridge? Hang concertina wire? Put up gates? There is a telling question there (to me anyway): what level of 'protection' is considered reasonable? Wouldn't there be a line when expenses related to prevention of trespassing becomes prohibitive? Or is that basically saying that "We didn't do X because it cost too much"? Around my area CN has a swing bridge that gets used as a fishing dock on a fairly regular basis. To my knowledge nobody's been hit...yet...and I've personally called folks in to the CN PD for trespass, especially when I know something's coming. There's about 6 signs on each side of the bridge that warn of the danger. It's even supposedly monitored by remote camera. Where's the line of "enough"?
I think Gabe answered and elaborated on that. CN isn't inviting people to fish on the bridge so they can charge a fee and make a profit. It seems to me that the warning of "danger, keep off" is going to make it very difficult for anyone getting hit by a train on the bridge to successfully sue for damages.
CNW 6000jeatonI don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that NS has posted "Danger, No Trespassing" signs on or about the bridge. What would you do? Have a security guard patrol the bridge? Hang concertina wire? Put up gates?Wouldn't there be a line when expenses related to prevention of trespassing becomes prohibitive? Or is that basically saying that "We didn't do X because it cost too much"?
Absolutely. Reasonable has different definitions in different contexts, but it often comes down to the expense of preventing the injury versus the likelihood of injury.
In any event, cost is a factor.
Sawtooth500This is a great example of how our litigious society negatively affects us: As a railfan, I would LOVE to go for a cab ride on a working RR, not just a museum. Well, had I been born 50 years earlier I could probably hang around trackside and just get an offer from the crew. Now? Not a chance! What has changed? The liability! 50 years ago, if I went for a cab ride and got hurt it was my own dumb fault and that was end of story - but these days I went for one and got hurt I could very easily sue - maybe win, maybe not, but either way still costing the RR money for what would have been a PRIVILEGE (not a right) for me... and now because of all the sue-happy people in our society and the dumb laws that allow stupid suits cabs rides are a great example of a privilege that's been lost - and yes it does make me angry!
Ah, how we look at the past with rose-colored glasses. How do you think lawyers made a living 100 year ago? Half of the cases in law school text books coming out of the 1890s involved railroads. Like being a doctor, the golden age of profit is not 2010--it was something like 1950, at least for general practitioners.
Tort law has not really changed to produce the result you are complaining about. Insurance companies and profit loss managers have changed.
gabeSawtooth500This is a great example of how our litigious society negatively affects us: As a railfan, I would LOVE to go for a cab ride on a working RR, not just a museum. Well, had I been born 50 years earlier I could probably hang around trackside and just get an offer from the crew. Now? Not a chance! What has changed? The liability! 50 years ago, if I went for a cab ride and got hurt it was my own dumb fault and that was end of story - but these days I went for one and got hurt I could very easily sue - maybe win, maybe not, but either way still costing the RR money for what would have been a PRIVILEGE (not a right) for me... and now because of all the sue-happy people in our society and the dumb laws that allow stupid suits cabs rides are a great example of a privilege that's been lost - and yes it does make me angry! Ah, how we look at the past with rose-colored glasses. How do you think lawyers made a living 100 year ago? Half of the cases in law school text books coming out of the 1890s involved railroads. Like being a doctor, the golden age of profit is not 2010--it was something like 1950, at least for general practitioners.Tort law has not really changed to produce the result you are complaining about. Insurance companies and profit loss managers have changed.Gabe
Sawtooth500 Sure, someone could file a frivolous lawsuit against you and yeah you can get it thrown out in court. But in the meanwhile you are going to expend time and money on your part - and as someone who runs a small business I can attest that many small businesses (like I'm assuming that canoe rental is) don't have the resources to defend themselves - and even the cost of a defense of a frivolous lawsuit could run them into the ground.
jeaton Bucyrus jeaton Bucyrus If canoe renters trespassing on the bridge were so common that the canoe rental outfit should have known about it, does it not follow that the NS should have also known about it? And if the canoe rental outfit should be held liable for not warning canoe renters about the danger of trespassing on the bridge, should not NS also be held liable for not preventing people from trespassing on the bridge? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that NS has posted "Danger, No Trespassing" signs on or about the bridge. What would you do? Have a security guard patrol the bridge? Hang concertina wire? Put up gates? Well, if it were up to me, I would not hold the canoe rental company or the NS liable for the death. But if you construct a case where the canoe rental company should have taken action because they knew about the hazard, then the same reasoning should apply to the NS as well. If trespassing on the bridge was so common, it seems reasonable to conclude that NS should have known about it. And if they knew about it, they should have known that a sign was not preventing people from trespassing. So they had to know that there was a particularly high probability of somebody getting killed on that bridge. It seems to me that it is fairly well established that signs warning of danger and posting no trespassing either relieve or significantly mitigate liability for injury to an individual who ignores the signs. If that is situation in this case, and other facts presented in evidence show that all appropriate warnings were made, and in the absence of other considerations, then the plaintiff's suit may not be successful. If it goes to trial, 6 ordinary citizens on a jury may come to the same conclusion that you have. Is that a problem?
“If it goes to trial, 6 ordinary citizens on a jury may come to the same conclusion that you have.
Is that a problem?”
My conclusion was that if the canoe rental company could be found liable, then by the same reasoning, NS could likewise be found liable. If a jury came to that conclusion, I would be inclined to conclude that the jury should not have found either party liable. In that sense, from my perspective, it would be a problem. But, at least it would be consistent according to my analogy of the two defendants owing protection to the victim.
However, as Gabe has explained, the burden of protection is stricter with the canoe rental company than it is with the NS. Given that stipulation, I do not know what to expect the jury to do. Nor do I have any opinion as to what they should do. If the burden of protection is different for the two defendants, the protection they provided cannot be directly compared. And I have no idea of how to measure the burden of protection for each party.
Sawtooth500 Let them be on the bridge, I say. Just if they get hit, they need to know the only party responsible is themselves. The hard part here is that the law may not work quite like that...
CNW 6000Sawtooth500 Let them be on the bridge, I say. Just if they get hit, they need to know the only party responsible is themselves. The hard part here is that the law may not work quite like that...If my calling of the CN PD (or say I lived near the bridge in the OH lawsuit and called the NS PD) gets a LEO to come out and chat with some folks and maybe, just maybe helps some small business owner avoid the suit because the folks patronizing them remembered the contact with the LEO...wouldn't that ounce of "prevention" (warned by PD, maybe think about warning signs more-pretty reasonable I'd say) be cheaper for everyone involved...than the pound of "cure" (lawsuit-which cost more all around; injury/death to patron and high expense to plaintiff/defendant)? Additionally if enough calls come in to the PD then maybe they keep an extra set of eyes somewhat closer to the bridge when they can...and maybe someone else gets spared down the road. Or am I off in la-la land?
So you're saying that if you have an "out" (ie safe place to exit readily available) it's still "OK" to violate the rules and pass those signs/warnings...because you think you can get off in time? IOW "Those rules don't apply because I can make it/I have a plan". That's what you're saying, right? I would think a more reasonable view would (should?) be "Signs say DANGER and NO TRESPASSING and are posted for a reason, I shouldn't go there...even if tempted". We may have to agree to disagree on this as I see it pretty much B&W here...you are either on the 'safe' side of the line or on the 'danger' side of the line. When I worked in the field of Aquatics I frequently audited Lifeguard staff for 'best practices' and I looked at that the same way: right or wrong. If you started making exceptions "just this time" especially where Safety is concerned that was a slippery slope related to assumption of risk...and at worst in the neighborhood of negligence. There isn't any 'in between' the way I see it. Just my $.02 I guess.
CNW 6000So you're saying that if you have an "out" (ie safe place to exit readily available) it's still "OK" to violate the rules and pass those signs/warnings...because you think you can get off in time? IOW "Those rules don't apply because I can make it/I have a plan". That's what you're saying, right? I would think a more reasonable view would (should?) be "Signs say DANGER and NO TRESPASSING and are posted for a reason, I shouldn't go there...even if tempted". We may have to agree to disagree on this as I see it pretty much B&W here...you are either on the 'safe' side of the line or on the 'danger' side of the line. When I worked in the field of Aquatics I frequently audited Lifeguard staff for 'best practices' and I looked at that the same way: right or wrong. If you started making exceptions "just this time" especially where Safety is concerned that was a slippery slope related to assumption of risk...and at worst in the neighborhood of negligence. There isn't any 'in between' the way I see it. Just my $.02 I guess.
Do a web search for railroad cases.
Type in a Railroad Name and either vs. or versus to find lawsuits new and old against railroads.
There have been many different types of cases against all the railroads for decades.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Sawtooth500The entire moral of the story is that in my opinion as long as others don't get hurt people should be able to do as they wish ...
Well, that's exactly how people justify trespass on railroad property. And the way you think on this is exactly the problem in the first place.
ICLandSawtooth500The entire moral of the story is that in my opinion as long as others don't get hurt people should be able to do as they wish ... Well, that's exactly how people justify trespass on railroad property. And the way you think on this is exactly the problem in the first place.
Sawtooth500So Im guessing you've never walked across the tracks at a place other than a grade crossing?
Yes, you would be just guessing.
ICLandSawtooth500So Im guessing you've never walked across the tracks at a place other than a grade crossing? Yes, you would be just guessing.
To me this goes back to that old argument...just because one CAN doesn't do something mean one SHOULD do that thing. There's many areas where folks could debate this (trespassing, speeding, etc) but the topic here was about railroads getting sued and whether the person who committed the 'wrong' (trespassing, speeding, etc) COULD really sue and win. A page or two back someone stated that if you had a hazardous condition/whatever on something you owned then you were obligated to warn that the hazard existed (I think that was the gist of the statement). The gray area comes into play when something bad happens and someone (or 6 someones) get to decide whether or not your warnings were enough to have prevented a reasonable person from doing whatever happened. Given the apparent desperation of many of the folks in this land for some kind of fiscal windfall and (perhaps) the notion of "What can it really hurt" we are where we are today. I can't tell you when or why the mindset changed from folks taking responsibility for what they did and holding others blameless to being a society (seemingly) of "nothing's my fault-pay me". This isn't a forum (IMO) for psychology or studying the changes in socio-economic status relative to the propensity for litigation and I'm no expert in that field so I won't pretend to be.
All I think I can influence is my behavior by being as rational and careful as I can be. Thinking before 'leaping' so to speak when I decide to take a calculated risk. I try not to put myself in situations where my only options are bad and worse. If each of us did that and more folks thought that way....
Your mileage may vary.
Yes sueing is big business for the ambulance chasers. A while back I was on the Board of Directors of a large transit agency. We would get about 200 slip and fall suits a year usually asking for $5,000. It was cheaper to pay than fight as the legal costs would be more than the proposed settlement and there was always the chance that you would loose. I came up with idea of reviewing each case. If we were at fault apologize and write a check. If the case was a joke fight it in court. We spent about $150,000 the first year fighting these junk cases but the word was soon out on the street that we were not an instant wealth agency. After a year our junk suits went from 200 to about 10 and these ten got the message the hard way.
Huh, $150,000 per year just to fight the slip and fall suits suits. I wonder how much it would have cost you to hire some one for minumum wage/$25,000 per year to clear your darn floors of slipping hazards?
Sorry if I am sounding a little cranky. There was this ambulance on the way to work this morning, it was going a little too fast for me to catch, and now I have to rethink my ability ot buy that second Porsche I was looking at.
You rock GABE!
ccltrains Yes sueing is big business for the ambulance chasers. A while back I was on the Board of Directors of a large transit agency. We would get about 200 slip and fall suits a year usually asking for $5,000.
Yes sueing is big business for the ambulance chasers. A while back I was on the Board of Directors of a large transit agency. We would get about 200 slip and fall suits a year usually asking for $5,000.
This really doesn't fit the projected image of ruthless, greedy trial lawyers I keep reading about. Five thousand dollars sounds more like somebody's chiropractor bills and some padding for the lawyer to write the letters. Nobody actually ever slips and falls?
mudchicken You rock GABE! (even though better than half of your tribe can't write a legal, er-um "property"description!)
Thanks, MC, the feeling is mutual.
But, are you certain that it is only half my tribe? I would be willing to bet quite seriously that more than 95% of lawyers could not write a property description.
I think the most accurate description of lawyers I have ever heard is: average-to-moderately intelligent but extremely motivated individuals who are scared to death of blood and numbers.
Property descriptions have numbers in them; therefore, lawyers are bad at them.
You can imagine my ironic horror when I was taking the bar when a property description was one of the questions. My father was a surveyor--if I failed because of that question that I had no idea how to answer, it would have been a horrible way to start a career bagging groceries. Fortunately for me, I did somewhat better at the other questions . . .
Gabe:
Gonna save that quote and put it up with the alledged quote of W.C. Fields about engineers. Must be at least "half" (it's that darned numbers thing again -shouldn't go there) considering the badgering surveyors get from title lawyers (at ALTA et al) about ceasing to use the term "legal description" and use "property description" even though the State Statutes frequently use the term.
NoBody Here But Us Chickens
ps - about to have tons of fun with the "abandoned" line of a forner narrow gauge railroad in your state that is still owned by a railroad in spite of what the neighbors and a title company policy say.
Gabe: I have sat on 2 civil juries in Georgia. There were 12 jurors. Here in Arizona where I live now there would be eight, same as a criminal jury.
Speaking of stupid......
Gabe: I have sat bon 2 civil juries in Georgia. There were 12 jurors. Here in Arizona where I live now there would be eight, same as a criminal jury.
ICLand says: This really doesn't fit the projected image of ruthless, greedy trial lawyers I keep reading about. Five thousand dollars sounds more like somebody's chiropractor bills and some padding for the lawyer to write the letters. Nobody actually ever slips and falls?
Lawyering is all about the art of the possible... and all about the bluff. The lawyer asks $5000 to make it cheaper for the railroad to settle than go to court. The lawyer doesn't want to go to court, that's hard work. He can get $5000 for writing a letter. Done. Why is that greedy? Because it's too easy.
The head of a shortline/tourist line is suing me for $10,000,000. Seems his company wants a nearby railway museum's rail line. He tried to take over the railway museum. I intervened to protect them, and he didn't much appreciate that, and he wants to deter me from doing it in the future. So he filed a nonsense lawsuit. The point is to drag me out of California into a state with no SLAPP laws, and force me to pay for lawyers while he represents himself for free. Anyway back to the point - the law is about the art of the possible. This is possible. This has generated many thousands of real dollars in real cost to me, and there's no end in sight, and he could bankrupt me simply by pressing on.
There are a group of bottom dwelling lawyers who make their money by filing small claims ($5-10,000 range) with no intention of seeing the inside of a courtroom. They know it is cheaper to settle the small claim rather than fight it and work on this premise. They really are a problem and are giving the legal profession a bad name. One third of $5000 is a little over $1500 and if you file 6-10 of these a day at a cost of $50 each it can be big dollars for minimal work. Not the income from the big class action suits, but a good living.
As to employing a cleaner to prevent slip and falls we do this in a big way, but the next customer after the area was swept could spill a drink and bam-another slip and fall case.
We had a similar case on a bus. The bus was passing a dump truck and the mirrors of the bus and truck hit and rocked the bus slightly. The driver parked the bus and exited to talk to the truck driver. While he was off the bus one of our better citizens ran up and down the bus telling everyone to moan and say they were hurt. He looked around to find a good place to lay down and fake an injury. He did have an ambulance chaser file a law suit. Unknown to him and the lawyer this bus was being used for a test of our new video recording system. The lawyer came into the office to discuss the lawsuit and we pulled out the video. After looking at the video the lawyer withdrew from the case. Video does work.
We even staged a small accident with an empty bus in not the best area of town fully equipped with video. Six people hopped on the empty staged bus and claimed to be hurt. This one did not go to court.
ccltrains There are a group of bottom dwelling lawyers who make their money by filing small claims ($5-10,000 range) with no intention of seeing the inside of a courtroom. They know it is cheaper to settle the small claim rather than fight it and work on this premise.
There are a group of bottom dwelling lawyers who make their money by filing small claims ($5-10,000 range) with no intention of seeing the inside of a courtroom. They know it is cheaper to settle the small claim rather than fight it and work on this premise.
OK, and if a person did slip and fall, and asked for an honest sum to pay for their medical care, under your premise it is even less likely that a lawyer would actually take their case to trial.
Within your theory of denying compensation to everyone, which presumes there is no such thing as a legitimate "slip and fall," the moral of the story is that it is morally justifiable to treat the fraud and the injured exactly alike?
Really? That's OK? A societal "good"?
I have already become more involved in this debate than I should, and I appreciate ICLand's sentiments--as well as his apparent fondness for my favorite line--but, I have absolutely no problem with ccltrains' transit program of taking most every case to trial.
Like a plaintiffs' decision to take a case to trial, a defendant has an absolute right to have a jury of its peers say, no, the defendant was not at fault. That is what the Court system is for. In my view, any plaintiffs' lawyer who takes a case, whether it be a $3000 slip or fall or a $300,000,000 class action has a moral obligation to be prepared to take the case to trial and advocate for his or her client if the case does not settle.
I will always respect a defednant's decision to vigorously oppose a case. It is my job to show the defendant that they miscalculated, and a jury's job to determine who made the better decision.
My primary complaint associated with this post is bad mouthing juries who ultimately adjudicate the decision, judging all plaintiffs by a few cases, or defendants moaning when they made the wrong decision not to settle--did you know that McDonalds was offered $20,000 to settle the infamous $7,000,000 coffee thrid-degree burn case?
ICLand ccltrains: There are a group of bottom dwelling lawyers who make their money by filing small claims ($5-10,000 range) with no intention of seeing the inside of a courtroom. They know it is cheaper to settle the small claim rather than fight it and work on this premise. OK, and if a person did slip and fall, and asked for an honest sum to pay for their medical care, under your premise it is even less likely that a lawyer would actually take their case to trial. Within your theory of denying compensation to everyone, which presumes there is no such thing as a legitimate "slip and fall," the moral of the story is that it is morally justifiable to treat the fraud and the injured exactly alike? Really? That's OK? A societal "good"?
ccltrains: There are a group of bottom dwelling lawyers who make their money by filing small claims ($5-10,000 range) with no intention of seeing the inside of a courtroom. They know it is cheaper to settle the small claim rather than fight it and work on this premise.
ccltrains I came up with idea of reviewing each case. If we were at fault apologize and write a check. If the case was a joke fight it in court.
I came up with idea of reviewing each case. If we were at fault apologize and write a check. If the case was a joke fight it in court.
gabe My primary complaint associated with this post is bad mouthing juries who ultimately adjudicate the decision, judging all plaintiffs by a few cases, or defendants moaning when they made the wrong decision not to settle--did you know that McDonalds was offered $20,000 to settle the infamous $7,000,000 coffee thrid-degree burn case?
Good point!
And I think that underscores what happens when corporations of any type place themselves in the position of forcing someone to go to court because, unfortunately, they made a decision that it was such a "small" case, that the defendant could not afford to take it to trial.
I have read about the McDonald's case and was appalled. McDonald's had adopted this policy of "only pay the meritorious" cases, but a review had shown that the policy had been applied so broadly that their own internal standard of "meritorious" meant that they had made two conclusions: 1) McDonald's would settle only if there was no way that McDonald's could win and 2) the damages were large enough to justify a defense lawyer taking the case. So, injured "little people" rarely got anything. Corporate policy of "only paying meritorious" cases, from what I have read, often morphs into a "only pay meritorious big cases because we know the little cases will never to be tried because the defendants will lose (under the contingency fee theory) even if they win."
The "Third Degree Burn" case really jumped out at me. That 80 year old lady had been scalded horribly over her entire genital area requiring multiple skin grafts.
McDonald's had had 750 similar claims of scaldings requiring medical care -- all of which they rejected as a matter of policy that deemed such claims as unmeritorious. Their own safety officer thought their coffee was served too hot. Their quality control manager felt it was justified because he believed that all McDonald's coffee drinkers purchased their coffee to take home and so McDonald's had to account for the cooling on the way home. That's what he testified to. The jury found it incredible.
I've only had one civil jury experience and one criminal jury experience, and I found the people serving on the civil jury to be surprisingly well informed but, more importantly, sincere about trying to follow the Judge's written instructions. There were differences of opinion, and some strong personalities, but wherever there was a clash of opinions, everyone went back to the instructions, and the quieter people tended to apply the logic of the instructions to the facts and voted accordingly.
It was a very positive experience for me to see what actually went on during jury deliberations. I will comment that the attorney for the corporation involved had an "attitude" that didn't create any goodwill for his company; and it really was "I'm an attorney for this big company, and we get these suits all the time" kind of attitude. "A real stuffed shirt," as one of the other jurors announced at the start of deliberations. Nobody liked him. It didn't affect the outcome -- the verdict was in favor of the company -- but I could see that in very close cases, the attitude or presentation of the attorney very likely could affect an outcome.
Murphy Siding No, it appears you'd have to be overlooking what he actually said about it. It seems to me, that ccltrains has already answered that question. Maybe ccltrains could tell us how many of the cases actually wnet to court, and how many were won or lost?
No, it appears you'd have to be overlooking what he actually said about it. It seems to me, that ccltrains has already answered that question. Maybe ccltrains could tell us how many of the cases actually wnet to court, and how many were won or lost?
There was something here that didn't make much sense to me. A policy of paying "meritorious claims," but not paying fraud claims? Who instituted, and why, a policy of previously paying non-meritorious claims? That really happened? Just pay ALL claims no matter what? I can see the problem that would arise, but that's not because I might be the brightest star in the constellation, its because that would be a sure-fire invitation for EVERYBODY to file a claim. That just doesn't make sense for any organization to have that policy in the first place.
It makes no sense. Ever.
I understand the costs of litigation. I've been involved in it most of my adult life. I've been an expert witness on a number of cases, including one of the largest rail-splitting derailment cases ever filed.
A completely "meritorious" $5,000 claim has a problem: the one-third contingency fee won't cover it. Firstly, the case requires an expert witness. For reasons I don't fully understand, those damages aren't recoverable even if you win. In my neck of the woods, here's the expert witness fee schedule for the kind of stuff I am involved in: 1) review records and issue an initial opinion: $7,500. Deposition charges: all travel, expenses, $1,000 an hour. Trial time, including travel, expenses, waiting, lunch: $1,500 an hour. If the expert actually has to go out and conduct any kind of testing of materials or scenarios, add $50,000-$100,000. This may overstate comparable costs of medical experts since there are more of them and more general literature is available.
On a contingency fee case, that all comes out of the attorney's pocket, payable from the client out of the settlement or paid judgment. On a $5,000 claim; that's not a case that can go to trial no matter how "meritorious." If there is anything to be "troubled" about, its how expensive the legal system is, and how that expense, all by itself, prevents the smaller, legitimate claims from ever being tried. In many ways, it could be argued, it is a system designed to protect the large players simply because the ultimate cost of entry is so high. You may or may not think that is a "plus" overall.
The McDonald's case struck me as one where the client had really not wanted to go to trial, no doubt because of her age, and so the attorneys really low-balled the settlement just to get it settled, and then got PO'd at McDonalds at the completely unreasonable rejection, and were willing to spend what must have been a half a million dollars at least to go after what they believed was an unconscionable corporate policy.
I assume it was a very large law firm that itself had the deep pockets to do so since, as I recall, the little old lady that was scalded was being driven through the drive-through by her grandson and it didn't sound like she had much money.
mudchickenps - about to have tons of fun with the "abandoned" line of a forner narrow gauge railroad in your state that is still owned by a railroad in spite of what the neighbors and a title company policy say.
Are you coming to the land of corn to look at a cloverleaf?
If you read my post you would see that I said we would evaluate all claims and if they had merit we would quickly pay and offer our sincere apologies. If the case was without merit we would pursue all legal defenses at our disposal. Our transit agency operates in a small geographical area, not half of the country such as a class 1. Therefore we have to be aware of our public image in our geographical small operating area by showing compassion but also protecting the interests of our stakeholders and not waste our assets . See my post this morning about faked claims we recorded on video.
Almost all of the $5000 claims are filed in small claims court where the filing fees are about $50. There are no expert witness fees as some "bad" doctors work in concert with the lawyers and will certify almost anything. Soft tissue damage is very difficult to prove or disprove. It is a very low cost case to file in small claims and pay the doctor if he wins. For a total expenditure of $100-150 for filing fees and doctor's contingency fee it is easy money if it is settled out of court. Remember the lawyer takes about 1/3 plus costs.
As a consulting professional engineer i have done expert testimony in domestic and international tribunals. I ALWAYS was paid for time spent plus out of pocket expenses. I NEVER worked on a contingency basis as then you are concerned about the outcome and your impartiality is in question. With proper homework and preparation I have never been on the loosing side. I am glad to be retired as that track record was getting harder to maintain with time. Many cases I turned down because after preliminary analysis I deemed the case to be non winnable and told the client so after explaining my reasons. In the vast majority of the cases like this the client declined to go forward with the case. By keeping my presentation in the tribunals on a professional level I have left the court still friends with the opposing expert.
ccltrains If you read my post you would see that I said we would evaluate all claims and if they had merit we would quickly pay and offer our sincere apologies. If the case was without merit we would pursue all legal defenses at our disposal. .... See my post this morning about faked claims we recorded on video. Almost all of the $5000 claims are filed in small claims court where the filing fees are about $50. ... Soft tissue damage is very difficult to prove or disprove.
If you read my post you would see that I said we would evaluate all claims and if they had merit we would quickly pay and offer our sincere apologies. If the case was without merit we would pursue all legal defenses at our disposal. .... See my post this morning about faked claims we recorded on video.
Almost all of the $5000 claims are filed in small claims court where the filing fees are about $50. ...
Soft tissue damage is very difficult to prove or disprove.
Off list, I am advised that these are interesting points:
1) "Discovery" does not occur prior to litigation, so how a claim might be, before it can be properly investigated, deemed " without merit," is a little bit of the cart before the horse.
2) The "faked claims video" is an interesting exercise for a public agency to undertake. Done next to a housing project? Why was public money spent on that? It can't be used in any individual court case; it can't be publicized without accusations of attempting to "taint the jury pool" against legitimate claims (and that looks to be the purpose), and it permits lawyers then to seek a change of venue -- creating an expensive proposition for the defense. Indeed, if something like that aired during a pending case -- sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. So, they set up this whole thing to video ... for their own private amusement? At taxpayer expense?
3) As courts of "limited jurisdiction," most small claims courts don't have jurisdiction over personal injury cases. I suppose they could where you were, but it raises a question since usually that can't happen. [Edit: I am further advised that, at least in most jurisdictions -- and they do vary -- the purpose of small claims courts generally is to permit litigants to file without a lawyer; waiving a jury. If you use a lawyer, it can't be filed in small claims courts].
4) "Slip and Fall" cases are generally not "soft tissue" cases of the type generally referred to as "soft tissue injury" cases which are most typically automobile "rear enders," where the most common injury, "whiplash" has no external symptoms. "Slip and Fall" nearly always have external symptoms, ranging from bruising to contusions, sprains, to broken bones, fractured skulls, concussions and even paralysis. These are whole different categories of cases.
5) I did not once see the words "Claims Adjuster" used in the posts, which is a position created about 150 years ago for Class I's, including those with urban transit responsibilities, and which had for good and well-known reasons adopted policies of paying legitimate claims and resisting illegitimate claims without the necessity of spending good money to produce a video that showed that people sometimes make things up. Really, was this "Headline News" to somebody on your Board of Directors? You spent how much taxpayer money to educate this board on the obvious?
6) The very existence of a video like this is discoverable in a litigated case. It goes to "bad faith" reasons why a entity might not settle a legitimate claim promptly and fairly. It would be explosive material in the hands of a skilled lawyer attempting to prove "bad faith" settlement practices. No corporate counsel worth his salt would advise that something like this be done; it's amateur, and because of that, legally lethal. The liability on that could be enormous; far out of proportion to the underlying damages in a case. This is nearly "McDonald's Class Dumb" to produce this kind of "testimony" that can be used at trial as evidence of "attitude" toward injured parties.
7) I did see the words, "we would evaluate ...," which makes it sound like a very busy Board of Directors, but that just doesn't sound right; most people familiar with these things would refer to their Claims Adjuster or Claims Adjustment department. A very small transit agency would likely have an insurer; a large enough one, an internal Claims department. I suppose on small claims it is possible for an agency to operate all on its own "in between" an insurance carrier and a claims department. I've just never heard of one where a board of directors sits around evaluating 200 "small claims" cases a year.
8) While I can understand that a little transit entity might not have the internal expertise available to know how to handle these things, it strikes me that the reference to 200 fake claims a year at $5,000 each -- $1 million a year in claims does not strike me as a "little" transit entity -- did not require in essence reinventing the wheel by filming a useless and in some ways misleading video in order to justify ... a Claims Adjuster!
And if this sounds cynical, perhaps that's what the transit agency needed in the first place without a lot of set decorating and videography -- a good, cynical claims adjuster. And had your bunch asked just about anyone in the transit or railroad industry, I'm fairly certain that they could have skipped the TV production and gone right to the solution.
There' s something in the narrative that just doesn't hang together very well for me; perhaps it really was just a lack of experience at this agency, or perhaps I should have been a claims adjuster.
Regarding the famous McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit, it appears that the final reward wasn't in the millions. http://www.hurt911.org/mcdonalds.html
You apparently are a lawyer which I am not. I used the therm "we" in referring to the whole agency not the board. The claims are handled by our legal department which consists of about 12 lawyers. They do use claims adjusters. I had no intention of going into the complete legal formalities of how a case would progress through the system. I only wanted to point out that false claims do exist and we were working to limit the exposure of the agency. We do have limited immunity under state law however the immunity only is good until the next court case as any lawyer will tell you. We are not a small agency. Our service area covers 13 cities and we operate 100 miles of light rail, 35 miles of commuter rail, paratransit services, HOV lanes, and 1000 buses.
rrnut282 mudchicken: ps - about to have tons of fun with the "abandoned" line of a forner narrow gauge railroad in your state that is still owned by a railroad in spite of what the neighbors and a title company policy say. Are you coming to the land of corn to look at a cloverleaf?
Heck, that could be anyplace west of Toledo, and east of St. Louis -or maybe Kansas City . . .
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr rrnut282: mudchicken: ps - about to have tons of fun with the "abandoned" line of a forner narrow gauge railroad in your state that is still owned by a railroad in spite of what the neighbors and a title company policy say. Are you coming to the land of corn to look at a cloverleaf? Heck, that could be anyplace west of Toledo, and east of St. Louis -or maybe Kansas City . . . - Paul North.
rrnut282: mudchicken: ps - about to have tons of fun with the "abandoned" line of a forner narrow gauge railroad in your state that is still owned by a railroad in spite of what the neighbors and a title company policy say. Are you coming to the land of corn to look at a cloverleaf?
gabe . But, do not call jurors stupid. You have no idea what you are talking about. This thread rivals the white boxcars with shackles threads in terms of overall ignorance:
. But, do not call jurors stupid. You have no idea what you are talking about.
This thread rivals the white boxcars with shackles threads in terms of overall ignorance:
Well Gabe, You just may be correct in that assumption, provided you're willing to wear blinders to maintain an intentionally narrow perspective on the concept.
History is full of cases where a jury has been successfully manipulated ( O.J. Simpson, officer Stacey Koon, I could go on and on)
And often this is a direct result of the unofficial partnership between judges and prosecutors where you seem to believe it is your job to put people* behind bars, (as opposed to' finding justice' )
Juries are made up of fallible people, and therefore any assumption that Juries cannot be "stupid' is folly in and of it's own self.
Look at the way our society frequently tends to assume guilt when an accused child molester is brought to trial, you have people (in the public domain) pounding their fists and deciding how the accused should be punished before the facts have even been heard. And those people are the people from whom juries are made.
*people who are not a "part" of the law enforcement industry, anyway
We frequently go to our favorite coffee shop in Dallas called Legal Grounds for our latte fix. The shop is owned by a lawyer who named all of the coffee drinks with legal names. The shop is decorated with the legal books that all lawyers have. I assume that his legal research is done on the net now rather than looking through the volumes. Above the door he has the sign: A jury consists of 12 people, who are determining your fate, who were too stupid to get out of jury service.
In my 70 years I have been called for jury duty about 8 times. I do not consider myself stupid. I have both a BS and MS in engineering and am a registered professional engineer in two states. I have considered it my civic duty to serve and have not tried to dodge jury service, even though it can sometimes be a pain. It is a sad commentary on life when over 200 jurors are summoned and about 1/3 of them show up. I have seen the judge get mad when there are insufficient jurors to fill the required panels. Then bench warrants are sent out which I agree with.
ccltrains We frequently go to our favorite coffee shop in Dallas called Legal Grounds for our latte fix. The shop is owned by a lawyer who named all of the coffee drinks with legal names. The shop is decorated with the legal books that all lawyers have. I assume that his legal research is done on the net now rather than looking through the volumes. Above the door he has the sign: A jury consists of 12 people, who are determining your fate, who were too stupid to get out of jury service. In my 70 years I have been called for jury duty about 8 times. I do not consider myself stupid. I have both a BS and MS in engineering and am a registered professional engineer in two states. I have considered it my civic duty to serve and have not tried to dodge jury service, even though it can sometimes be a pain. It is a sad commentary on life when over 200 jurors are summoned and about 1/3 of them show up. I have seen the judge get mad when there are insufficient jurors to fill the required panels. Then bench warrants are sent out which I agree with.
To you, sir, I say thank you. Whether you agree or disagree with my position.
Convicted One gabe: . But, do not call jurors stupid. You have no idea what you are talking about. This thread rivals the white boxcars with shackles threads in terms of overall ignorance: Well Gabe, Look at the way our society frequently tends to assume guilt when an accused child molester is brought to trial, you have people (in the public domain) pounding their fists and deciding how the accused should be punished before the facts have even been heard. And those people are the people from whom juries are made.
gabe: . But, do not call jurors stupid. You have no idea what you are talking about. This thread rivals the white boxcars with shackles threads in terms of overall ignorance:
Well Gabe,
I must say, you have left yourself hangout out there a little on this one.
Oh, the restraint.
gabe I must say, you have left yourself hangout out there a little on this one. Oh, the restraint. Gabe
By all means, feel free to elaborate, in context or out (your choice)
Convicted One: My question is this. What is your purpose in exhuming a thread that came to a conclusion a while back and that you haven't been in for even longer? Do you have some personal animosity to the right to a trial by a jury? The example you tossed out as an example of jury pool contamination was for a sensational (child molestation) criminal trial and we were discussing civil suits where the emotional element is considerably less..
schlimm Convicted One: My question is this. What is your purpose in exhuming a thread that came to a conclusion a while back and that you haven't been in for even longer? Do you have some personal animosity to the right to a trial by a jury? The example you tossed out as an example of jury pool contamination was for a sensational (child molestation) criminal trial and we were discussing civil suits where the emotional element is considerably less..
Convicted One: My question is this. What is your purpose in exhuming a thread that came to a conclusion a while back and that you haven't been in for even longer?
Do you have some personal animosity to the right to a trial by a jury?
The example you tossed out as an example of jury pool contamination was for a sensational (child molestation) criminal trial and we were discussing civil suits where the emotional element is considerably less..
#1. It should be abundantly clear that if I truly believed that the thread had "concluded" satisfactorily, I would have little motive to resurrect it, would I? In fact back at the time Gabe came forth with his heavy handed epistle lauding savant juries, I wished to comment then, but decided to let the rest of you "tick down" first, to avoid what appeared to be rising temperatures. Now that the dish can be served cold, I volunteered.
#2 Not at all, but I'm not going to live in denial of their fallibility the way some others here appear willing to do.
#3. No actually the emotional nature of all people, some of whom who comprise juries, is a key component to their gullibility/stupidity. I think that it's material to to my counterpoint, since we tend to let our emotions guide our judgment...frequently.
Juries also tend to be made up of people who are not wealthy, and there has been a demonstrated tendancy (in the civil trial examples you prefer) for them to make awards with defendant's money, even if guilt is doubtful...under the belief that the money will make the plaintiff's suffering somehow easier to tolerate.
that "OK" with you?
You are entitled to believe whatever you want. If the idea of trial by jury, a right obtained with much effort in our history, offends you, then so be it, although your sarcasm ("heavy handed epistle lauding savant juries") seems excessive, but never mind. Our population has a normal distribution of intelligence. You seem to think juries are composed of more stupid people than what should be the predicted case. Ditto with the poor and whatever other socioeconomic factors you are considering. So if I understand your reasoning, those factors render them incapable of reaching fair and just verdicts, especially in civil cases (you and others brought them up). So what would you suggest using to replace this system that has stood the test of time?
And BTW, why the picture of Carl Jung? Your postings appear to have nothing in common.
My problem with jury duty is simply the money - if I was just paid a fair value to adequately compensate me for the time away from my business that jury duty would entail I would have no problem doing it - my problem with jury duty is simply that I'm worth way more than $18 a day. Or here's an idea - take people receiving unemployment and put them on Jury Duty. Hell, they don't have a job, so hence they have free time on our hands. For those of us with work we just can't afford the life disruption that Jury Duty provides.
What bothers me about the attitude toward jury duty is that the populace seems to view trial by jury as an absolute right but despises the responsibility that corresponds with that right. If you value a trial by jury so highly, then bite the bullet and serve when called for jury duty.
There is a civic duty to serve on a jury. Yes it does not pay well but if we all refused to serve (ignoring the legal problems of being a no show) our court system would fall apart. My employer believed in the jury system and continued our salary while on jury duty. The only problem was that Dallas paid $5.00 per day for jury duty and the parking was $6.00 per day. I have a handicap parking permit so the parking in any government lot is free. There are not a lot of good comments that can be said about a company that does not support the jury system. Comment come to mind such as they are cheap *&^%$#. One company in Dallas told their employees to lie to get out of service. This got out and was published in the paper. The company got a big black eye in addition to the supervisor being brought up on charges and ultimately fired. Yes, if you are self employed you have a problem. There is no big brother to pay you for time spent siting on a jury. Dallas had a good system: one trial or one day of service. Most of the trials are one to two days which is a small price to pay to protect the American way of justice. Having seen the legal systems in other countries I would not like to be there.
I think that one of the reasons that people believe the jury is composed of people that were "not smart enough to get out of it", is because if a person knows something about the evidence that is to be presented, (especially knowledge that either/both the Prosecution or Defense does not want to be included) they would contaminate the jury with that knowledge... That knowledge would constitute testifying without crossexamination, which is unfair. i.e.: A person with certain knowledge is excluded from the jury and that reinforces the belief that the ones that are left must be ignorant people.
A possible cure for this problem would be to allow anyone on the jury but allow any jury member to submit questions and comments to the court (during the trial) to allow both sides to address the situation and present an answer and to crossexamine the testimony of that answer.
schlimm You are entitled to believe whatever you want. If the idea of trial by jury, a right obtained with much effort in our history, offends you, then so be it, although your sarcasm ("heavy handed epistle lauding savant juries") seems excessive, but never mind. Our population has a normal distribution of intelligence. You seem to think juries are composed of more stupid people than what should be the predicted case. Ditto with the poor and whatever other socioeconomic factors you are considering. So if I understand your reasoning, those factors render them incapable of reaching fair and just verdicts, especially in civil cases (you and others brought them up). So what would you suggest using to replace this system that has stood the test of time? And BTW, why the picture of Carl Jung? Your postings appear to have nothing in common.
Well, I'll tell ya Schlimm, it's like this:
I never said that I was opposed to (or offended by ) the right to "trial by jury"...that is something you have cooked up in your own head, and read into my post, and by so doing you have gone a long way to support my premise, thank you muches!!
My reservation was with Gabe's apparent posture that juries cannot "be stupid" (or maybe it was that he was offended at the suggestion that juries can/(may) be incompetant, since he won't stand up for himself it's hard to distill what he thought he meant) when in fact the history books are a cornucopia to the contrary.
I used the criminal case scenario as a prone example because it illustrates perfectly just how susceptible we are to our own preconceived notions. and can fall prey to our own ambitions in the "stupidest" ways.
Are all juries stupid? No, I don't think so, but because the lawyers orchestrating the proceedings are LIKELY more highly educated than a majority of the jurists they perform in front of, it would be a FOOL who would believe that juries are (as a rule) too clever to be misled. My point is precisely the contrary.
Afterall, attorneys shovel that stuff for a living day in and day out, while your average jurist might get dragged into that foreign environment only a couple times in their lifetime , and potentially be overwhelmed in the process
Add to that the strong likelihood that most jurists (in a civil proceeding) will not be "deep pockets" themselves, and many might even have contempt for those who are wealthier than they are, it's not that great of a stretch to fathom that a battle proven lawyer can convince a gullible jury that their poor suffering plaintiff needs the settlement money more that the deep pocketed defendant does, actual guilt notwithstanding.
I guess that's part of the reason why there is an appeal process?
I don’t believe that it is necessary to choose between the right of a trial by jury, and a fair system of jury selection and compensation. The former is fine the way it is, and the latter should be junked and replaced.
Convicted One; Apparently you have chosen to not answer my question concerning what you propose to replace our current jury system (selection and compensation, as Bucyrus says, or whatever aspects you think need replacement).
I suggest putting those receiving unemployment on jury duty - you get a very wide spattering of people and they are already receiving money for the government, and seeing as how they don't have a job the financial hardships of the time spent doing jury duty would not apply to them.
As several others have stated, jury duty was always considered one of those civic duties we have as citizens. (along with the draft, obeying laws, paying taxes, etc.) Perhaps in our new "every man, woman and child for themselves," civic duties are no longer part of the social fabric.
As I tried to make clear, I am not advocating doing away with the jury system. Just pay for it like government pays for everything else. As the current system is, people are bartering for their right to a jury trial by offering services in kind.
This idea that we need a draft to get people to perform jury duty is nonsense. If a trial by jury is a collective right, then let the collective pay the fair cost of calling their brethren to jury duty. The burden of jury duty varies from on district to another. And many people are excused according to some nonsensical legal privilege.
This leaves a reduced pool of jurors compared to the trial needs of society. And when these needs are the highest, the terms of jury duty are often the most stringent. The result is that people serving in these circumstances are carrying the weight of far more than just their fair allotment. Fix that part.
schlimm Convicted One; Apparently you have chosen to not answer my question concerning what you propose to replace our current jury system (selection and compensation, as Bucyrus says, or whatever aspects you think need replacement).
I've gone back and re-read EVERY post I've made in this thread, and not a one of them even hints that I proposed to offer a superior alternative. So where exactly do you get the notion that I "owe" you an answer to that question?
My reservation is not so much with juries, rather with people who insist that juries are above emotion/stupidity and that anyone who fails to share their view must not know what they are talking about. Gabe was wrong, in other words.
Perhaps some who see themselves as part of the system, feel that (their) juries must be impeccable as a component of their own feelings of contribution to a greater common good? Experience will probably cure that over time.
The appeals process exists as a tool available to those who feel the jury "got it wrong", so until someone invents a machine than can distill the guaranteed truth from someone's mind, we'll probably have to settle for the (allegedly) unbiased opinion of 12 (allegedly) indpendant people for some time to come. But let's not get foolish and dare suppose that component is immune from ANY aspect of the human experience..
Convicted One I've gone back and re-read EVERY post I've made in this thread, and not a one of them even hints that I proposed to offer a superior alternative. So where exactly do you get the notion that I "owe" you an answer to that question?
Where do you get the notion that I communicated any notion that you owe me any answer to any question? The proper usage of quotation marks is to indicate these are someone's exact words. I never said you owe me or or this forum an answer. Since you choose to make up an imaginary conversation, there is no point in any dialogue. Ditto with your suggestion that:
"My reservation is not so much with juries, rather with people who insist that juries are above emotion/stupidity and that anyone who fails to share their view must not know what they are talking about. Gabe was wrong, in other words."
My comments were that juries are a fairly representative sample of the population of the jurisdiction. Given that, they have people of the various levels of intelligence in a normal distribution. So clearly they are neither above nor below the influence of their emotions and/or stupidity. So what is your point? [And so there can be no misunderstanding, you don't owe anyone an answer.]
schlimm Convicted One: Where do you get the notion that I communicated any notion that you owe me any answer to any question?
Convicted One:
Where do you get the notion that I communicated any notion that you owe me any answer to any question?
perhaps your semi-sarcastic comment of "Convicted One; Apparently you have chosen to not answer my question concerning what you propose to replace our current jury system".. appears on the surface to be persistence on your part?
Your original observation complaining about my having revisited this thread made me chuckle this morning, thinking about how all the "know everythings" here like to jump on people for starting new threads on subjects for which there is already a thread active. Perhaps I should have started a brand new thread observing that how anyone who believes that people who dare think juries can be stupid don't know what they are talking about, don't know what they are talking about, as well,.. just so the peanut gallery can have it's way, e'hh? LOL.
schlimm My comments were that juries are a fairly representative sample of the population of the jurisdiction. Given that, they have people of the various levels of intelligence in a normal distribution. So clearly they are neither above nor below the influence of their emotions and/or stupidity.
My comments were that juries are a fairly representative sample of the population of the jurisdiction. Given that, they have people of the various levels of intelligence in a normal distribution. So clearly they are neither above nor below the influence of their emotions and/or stupidity.
Unless you are arguing that the representative sample of the jurisdiction cannot collectively be stupid (as well) because of some averaging effect, then I really don't think you and I are disagreeing, per se.
Gabe was the one claiming that people who felt Juries could be stupid were the ones not knowing what they are talking about, And I'd just like to point out that jury pools are selected from the same "fellow Americans" from whom a majority now believe that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, the same fellow Americans that once made McCarthyism all the rage, the same fellow Americans who once believed GW Bush's demagogic nonsense about Iraq possessing WMD, and the same fellow americans who fall prey time and again to episodes of mass hysteria ( ex. Mad Gasser of Mattoon) not to mention moral panic seeming at times to be an intrinsic component of our social fabric
Realistically, I think that it would be foolhardy to under estimate our society's capacity for stupidity., especially when one's own well being hangs in the balance.
Convicted One: Your examples are pretty humorous, but those and other factually challenged beliefs are unfortunately what many Americans (including some participants in these forums?) tend to adhere to. My point was simply that most juries are bound to be pretty representative of the overall population of the area served. So it is statistically improbable that the 6 or 12 or 24 (Grand juries) jurors selected will be largely "stupid" people, if by that term you are referring to low IQ's. Gullible or ill-informed and uncritically thinking people? Sadly, more likely.
The last time I checked this was a railroad forum not the Harvard Law Review. Lets quit acting like children and get back to the basic subject of trains.
The topic was RR's getting sued. Since that involves our judicial system, why would you think this thread is not on topic in discussing the jury system and its impact on lawsuits against RR's?
Could I suggest that the previous-but-one comment is indicative of a bit of anxiety over this thread....that and a message from a second (non-participatory) observer who has posted a Report of Abuse who also feels uneasy about the tenor of the thread on the past several pages.
Please, step back, collect some thoughts, and proceed cautiously with a view to toning down the rhetoric.
Thanks.
-Crandell
schlimm The topic was RR's getting sued. Since that involves our judicial system, why would you think this thread is not on topic in discussing the jury system and its impact on lawsuits against RR's?
This is far from my area of expertise, but I have been sitting back and enjoying this discussion. If someone wants to be all antsy and hit the "report" button because the posters are discussing something other than paint schemes, then let him. How that is of a grave concern to anyone else is beyond me....
schlimm if by that term you are referring to low IQ's. Gullible or ill-informed and uncritically thinking people? Sadly, more likely.
if by that term you are referring to low IQ's. Gullible or ill-informed and uncritically thinking people? Sadly, more likely.
And let's not overlook intellectual laziness, where so many seem to prefer to have others do their thinking for them.
Think of the instances of wrongful death cases at RR Crossings where awardsare made despite the blame falling mostly upon a motorist breaking the law. DO you think that smart people make such determination?
schlimm Convicted One: Your examples are pretty humorous, but those and other factually challenged beliefs are unfortunately what many Americans (including some participants in these forums?) tend to adhere to. My point was simply that most juries are bound to be pretty representative of the overall population of the area served. So it is statistically improbable that the 6 or 12 or 24 (Grand juries) jurors selected will be largely "stupid" people, if by that term you are referring to low IQ's. Gullible or ill-informed and uncritically thinking people? Sadly, more likely.
Convicted One: Your examples are pretty humorous, but those and other factually challenged beliefs are unfortunately what many Americans (including some participants in these forums?) tend to adhere to. My point was simply that most juries are bound to be pretty representative of the overall population of the area served.
So it is statistically improbable that the 6 or 12 or 24 (Grand juries) jurors selected will be largely "stupid" people, if by that term you are referring to low IQ's. Gullible or ill-informed and uncritically thinking people? Sadly, more likely.
First paragraph: Unfortunately those many americans adhering to those "factually challenged" beliefs get called for jury service every day. That's why I selected them as examples, because they provide a ready example of what your ~middle of the bell curve~ normal IQ Americans are capable of.
Second paragraph: Earlier you complained because I pulled a couple examples from criminal cases while your center of focus preferred to rationalize civil cases only. Do you have any hard information that might prove that the jury selection process for civil trials is any more discriminating than it is for criminal trials? I think that they intentionally draw from the same source, but I could be wrong. ..info?
Further ..even sane, rational, intelligent people can do stupid things when they find themselves in a stress filled environment with which they are not accustomed to. Especially when confronted by experts who thrive in that environment every day.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.