Trains.com

RR's getting Sued Locked

17987 views
131 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2009
  • 673 posts
Posted by Sawtooth500 on Monday, August 16, 2010 8:18 PM
Ha that would be a great platform for a politician to run on - tort reform - and make it so that if someone brings a lawsuit and loses they pay for the cost of the suit. Our over-litigious society has harmed society-at-large for the ill-gotten benefit of a few.
  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Monday, August 16, 2010 6:26 PM

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

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,014 posts
Posted by tree68 on Monday, August 16, 2010 6:08 PM

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.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, August 16, 2010 5:18 PM

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.  

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, August 16, 2010 4:17 PM

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...

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Guelph, Ontario
  • 4,819 posts
Posted by Ulrich on Monday, August 16, 2010 4:11 PM

Makes it crystal clear why they don't want unauthorized people on their property.

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Monday, August 16, 2010 4:02 PM

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.
  • Member since
    November 2009
  • 673 posts
Posted by Sawtooth500 on Monday, August 16, 2010 3:29 PM
Bucyrus

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.

That's really pretty sad... it ruins a lot of stuff for the rest of us! I believe in personal responsibility, and it's really sad that people just try to shift the blame on everyone else nowadays with lawsuits!
  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Monday, August 16, 2010 3:23 PM

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.My 2 cents

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.

 

 


 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, August 16, 2010 3:16 PM

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.

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 371 posts
Posted by ButchKnouse on Monday, August 16, 2010 12:59 PM

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.

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 13,892 posts
Posted by wjstix on Monday, August 16, 2010 12:46 PM

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.

Stix
  • Member since
    November 2009
  • 673 posts
RR's getting Sued
Posted by Sawtooth500 on Monday, August 16, 2010 12:39 PM
Ok, what legal precedent is there for this? For example, I heard a while back that some lady in Montana got hit by a BNSF train because she was walking on the tracks - not at a grade crossing, this was somewhere in the middle of nowhere in the wilderness - was her suit successful? How about a situation where a hobo takes a ride and gets injured? Could he sue and actually win? 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?

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy