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
Dan
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
ButchKnouse They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury.
They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Thank you Gabe. It is refreshing to hear someone knowledgeable on this forum for a change instead of the typical politically-informed nonsense.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Since we don't have a legally recognized class system like the UK, for jury purposes our peers are any United States Citizen.
Norm
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.
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?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.