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"?
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?
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.
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?
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?
"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
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.
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.
Gabe
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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...
Dan
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.