UP loses law suit for 11.7 against them because they "couldn't stop"

[mudchicken]

OLI is on the warpath out here now with Union Pacific's blessing. They are concentrating on the kids. (Teenagers and adults around here appear to be just too darned stupid to educate, wonder why?)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by georgel

This is a result of DUMBING DOWN of the school population in America, The public schools and teachers are tied to too much B.S. red tape that they can't teach! I was taught about R.R. tracks in grade school. Why do you think we now have to have OPERATION LIFESAVER ?

Not anymore it don't. Operation lifesaver don't apply anymore. It's meaningless.
Allan.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis

G'day, Y'all,
A quick question for you locomotive engineers out there. Can a freight train, or even a passenger train, stop in 1,200 feet from 60 mph?
Jock Ellis
Cumming, GA US of A

To just answer the question (without getting involved in any way in the debate),

Perhaps a suburban passenger train could IF:
the brakes were fully applied (either full-service or emergency) before you began counting distance, and there were at least 6 cars in the train (to offset the lousy braking distance on a locomotive), then perhaps it could stop in your 1200 feet.

But if this hypothetical passenger train were just rolling along, then no way could it stop in less than 1/4 mile. It takes about 5 seconds after the application of the brakes for the braking effort to begin to be noticably felt, and at 60mph (88 fps) you have already travelled over 400' before the braking effort even begins to take effect. That leaves you only 800' (just over 1.5x the train length) to stop. Not likely. (Some of the Metra 12-car suburban trains can stop in around two train lengths, but these trains are over 1000' long.)

A freight train? No way at all. The only way a freight train can stop in under 1200 feet from 60 mph is if it is no longer on the rails.

[jockellis]

G'day, Y'all and Gabe,
If my computer's calculator is correct, it would take the train 13.636 seconds to travel 1,200 feet at 60 mph. Could two seconds have been more helpful? I guess the jury thought so and that's all that counts. Did they hold this case in Alabama? It sounds like it.
Jock Ellis
Cumming, US of A

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garr

Gabe,

In answer to the assumption in your last paragraph, of course it would have been proper for UP to have lost the suit, but, in my opinion, for the original amount filed. If I were a juror on the case, I would have assumed the hired legal help for the girl fully investigated the needed future funds for the girl and inflated by a "fudge" % minus legal fees. I don't see the need for the inflated judgement by the jury.

The real question to me is: If this accident happened so quickly, how was there no damage to the boy friend's vehicle? If the train hit the front half of the girl's vehicle, wouldn't the leverage action of the struck vehicle being pushed at an angle at the moment of impact damage the boyfriend's vehicle? If the girl's vehicle was struck further back, wouldn't there have been damage done directly by the locomotive to the boyfriend's vehicle? If there was no damage to the boy friend's vehicle, did he have time to back up before the train struck the girl's vehicle? If there was damage to his vehicle, I would assume that he would have his own lawsuit against UP.

All I have read on this case has been on this forum, so I am very far from being fully informed. However, I think these questions may answer if there was time for the girl to get out of the vehicle, even after the boy friend decided to pu***he vehicle "clear".

Jay

I review damage awards regularly as part of my employment. In all honesty, I don't think that an 11.7 million award is all that high.

It sounds outrageous when you view it out of context. But:

Think about how much money the average American makes in a year, now multiply that number by the expected lifespan of a teenage girl.

Next, go to the doctor for a cold and walk out with a $400 bill. Now, imagine how much the bill would be if it had to be a specialist to deal with brain damage and spinal injuries and imagine having to go regularly for the rest of your life and all of the special medication that would be required.

Next, think about the cost of having to attend mental and physical therapy for the rest of your life.

Next, imagine the pain and suffering that would follow from knowing that you have lost 30% of your mental capacity, will not be able to date or marry as easily as everyone else in your high school class and you will be stuck in a wheel chair for the rest of your life.

I assure you 11.7 million was not a number taken out of thin air. I would be willing to bet that, if you see the actual calculations used to reach this number, you would have a hard time arguing with them.

I am with others in saying that the award should not have been given in the first place--as I think at least 70% of the negligence belonged to the boyfriend. But, assuming for the sake of argument that UP acted improperly, I really really don't think the jury got the damage award wrong.

Gabe

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis

G'day, Y'all,
A quick question for you locomotive engineers out there. Can a freight train, or even a passenger train, stop in 1,200 feet from 60 mph?
Jock Ellis
Cumming, GA US of A

Jock,

The claim was not that the train could have stopped in time, but that if the train had braked, it would have given the girl another few seconds that might have allowed her to escape injury. Like I said, earlier, I still think there are problems with this theory. But, there was no actual accusation that the train could have stopped.

Gabe

[jockellis]

G'day, Y'all,
A quick question for you locomotive engineers out there. Can a freight train, or even a passenger train, stop in 1,200 feet from 60 mph?
Jock Ellis
Cumming, GA US of A

[garr]

Gabe,

In answer to the assumption in your last paragraph, of course it would have been proper for UP to have lost the suit, but, in my opinion, for the original amount filed. If I were a juror on the case, I would have assumed the hired legal help for the girl fully investigated the needed future funds for the girl and inflated by a "fudge" % minus legal fees. I don't see the need for the inflated judgement by the jury.

The real question to me is: If this accident happened so quickly, how was there no damage to the boy friend's vehicle? If the train hit the front half of the girl's vehicle, wouldn't the leverage action of the struck vehicle being pushed at an angle at the moment of impact damage the boyfriend's vehicle? If the girl's vehicle was struck further back, wouldn't there have been damage done directly by the locomotive to the boyfriend's vehicle? If there was no damage to the boy friend's vehicle, did he have time to back up before the train struck the girl's vehicle? If there was damage to his vehicle, I would assume that he would have his own lawsuit against UP.

All I have read on this case has been on this forum, so I am very far from being fully informed. However, I think these questions may answer if there was time for the girl to get out of the vehicle, even after the boy friend decided to pu***he vehicle "clear".

Jay

[georgel]

This is a result of DUMBING DOWN of the school population in America, The public schools and teachers are tied to too much B.S. red tape that they can't teach! I was taught about R.R. tracks in grade school. Why do you think we now have to have OPERATION LIFESAVER ?

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

"Some folks still equate "right" with legal..."

Nope, not me. I have enough experience with the legal system from business deals to know there is nothing "right" about the legal system today at all.

A long time friend of mine, who is a criminal court judge, once told me "It is not about who is telling the truth...it is about who is telling the most believable lies who usually wins the case."

Just because a person/company is right doesn't mean they will prevail in court.



"You should because her very high medical bills will be covered by either the UP, her insurance or the taxpayer. I presume you pay taxes."

Why does American society now believe every time somebody gets hurt by THEIR own actions, SOMEBODY must pay for it. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? My feelings on this have nothing to do with this case involving a RR. I am talking about our society in general. Everytime I hear of somebody getting injured by their own actions, they are always trying to (1) screw more mony out of the insurance co. (2) screw money out of the government. (3) screw money out of some large corp. (4) sometimes all of the above.

I have a number of European friends who think (rightfully so) that we have totally lost our minds as a society when it comes to personal responsibility and legal liability.

It would be highly likely that if something like this happened in France or Germany, the girl and her family would not have received a dime from the railroad.

So how was it the girl's fault that her boyfriend paniced and pushed her car into the crossing? By the way do you usually think to get out of a car while it is being pushed from behind by another car? I am sure none of us on here would freeze up in such a situation.

So what about the fact that her likely damages will actually be 11.7 million makes them improper? I agree that UP was not responsible (from the several articles I have read, it would seem that the boyfriend is). But, assuming for sake of argument that UP is responsible, why is that award improper?

Gabe

[Anonymous]

All I can say is. The UP got screwed very badly.
And by the way,Is this what the Railroad gets for delievering the good to the public anymore? DISRESPECT! The Railroads try to do the good for this nation and those money hungry freaks try this. no! I see a trend in this country that is not good at all.
Allan.

[Anonymous]

So far, I haven't seen anything to indicate that any one of us on this topic actually sat through the entire trial. The jury, however, did, and reached their determination. Quite frankly, that's good enough for me.

So, what exactly was it that the jury found? Somehow, I rather seriously doubt that it was that UP is liable because the "train couldn't stop in time." That's too simplistic. That might be how the local media was playing it, but with nearly seventeen years under my belt around the old courthouse, I can tell you that the local media (newspaper/radio/television) almost never gets it right, especially if there's an iota of subtlety -- in other words, "if it bleeds, it leads," but never mind actually informing the public about what the case is actually about. At least when they are around the courthouse, most of your local media types don't know their backsides from third base.

Now perhaps some Colorado lawyer can help fill in here, but at least out here in Spudville you can't even assert a claim for punitive damages until you are granted permission to do so by the court, and the bar is set pretty high as to what kind of showing you have to make in order to bring such a claim to the jury. If such is the case in Colorado, then I join with Gabe in smelling a rat here; but that rat might be yellow.

So, without having heard all of the evidence myself, I'm not about to second-guess that jury. And even if Uncle Pete got shafted on this one, I'll still take the Sixth and Seventh Amendments any day of the week

TrummyandElla

[GP40-2]

"Some folks still equate "right" with legal..."

Nope, not me. I have enough experience with the legal system from business deals to know there is nothing "right" about the legal system today at all.

A long time friend of mine, who is a criminal court judge, once told me "It is not about who is telling the truth...it is about who is telling the most believable lies who usually wins the case."

Just because a person/company is right doesn't mean they will prevail in court.



"You should because her very high medical bills will be covered by either the UP, her insurance or the taxpayer. I presume you pay taxes."

Why does American society now believe every time somebody gets hurt by THEIR own actions, SOMEBODY must pay for it. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? My feelings on this have nothing to do with this case involving a RR. I am talking about our society in general. Everytime I hear of somebody getting injured by their own actions, they are always trying to (1) screw more mony out of the insurance co. (2) screw money out of the government. (3) screw money out of some large corp. (4) sometimes all of the above.

I have a number of European friends who think (rightfully so) that we have totally lost our minds as a society when it comes to personal responsibility and legal liability.

It would be highly likely that if something like this happened in France or Germany, the girl and her family would not have received a dime from the railroad.

[Chris30]

I read this thread yesterday & didn't comment. I couldn't believe that the girl won 11.5 mil from UP based on what I was reading. Of course I didn't know all of the facts or other BS. I started thinking about this thread this morning and I thought to myself, how much would it cost the UP to put security cameras on the front of all engines? You know, the kind you would find at a 7-Eleven. No sound, black and white, records for like 12 hours, rewinds and starts recording again. Or, from a railroad point of view, it would start recording at the beginning of every trip. Would it have cost the UP 11.5 million to install every engine with a camera? Would it have made any difference in this case?

CC

[gabe]

But how do you really feel about things Ed?

By the way, are there any facts you are leaving out? Not that I don't believe everything you said, it is just that--without the addition of more facts--the story sounds rather remarkable.

Gabe

[edbenton]

No worse than what happened to me I had a Drunk driver hit me while I was driving a truck. His widow got 1 mil plus court and atty fees. This guy was twice the legal limit his BAC was .24 my drug screen was clean as a whistle. His speed 75 mine 15 limit 45 now tell me who got screwed. I still feel to this day I had a 2ft diameter pole shoved where the F****** sun don't shine everyday.

[espeefoamer]

What were they passing around in that jury room,booze or the wacky tobbacky? It seems to me that if the train had time to stop she had plenty of time to get out.
[soapbox] [soapbox] [soapbox] [soapbox] [soapbox] [soapbox]

[edblysard]

Don’t waste your time, Gabe...
Some folks still equate "right" with legal...

Look, guys, it doesn’t matter if she was right, or wrong...what counts is she did get hit, and a jury found for her in a civil case...

As none of us were there, and saw what happened, either at the crossing, or in the court room, then all we can really argue is the amount of the award.

Like I said before, I think it’s her fault, but, if it was one of my daughters, I would sue the heck out of them also...

Now, why she was in the crossing, well....but the legal system, in this case, worked to her advantage, not UP's...

Did she set out that morning to be stupid?
I doubt it, but people do stupid things...and often get hurt because of them.

Our legal system is set up to offer the chance for both sides to argue their point of view, and plead their case.

Now, with out having been in the courtroom, but based on what the jury returned, it would seem that the young lady's attorney convinced a jury that the majority of her injuries are to be blamed on the railroads actions, or lack there of.

Trust me, 11 million for a lifetime of medical care aint all that much, and I am quite sure that, offered the chance to return to that morning, and do things differently, and return her life to the way it was before the accident, she would trade it off in a heartbeat.

While I think the accident is her, and her boyfriends fault, I can still feel compassion and pity for her.

If this accident had happened out on the freeway, and involved nothing but autos, everyone here would feel sorry for the girl, shake their head, and say it was a shame she got hurt...

But because it involved a train, we all jump to condemn her....

Having been involved in a fatal grade crossing accident, where the driver did the typical idiot move, and having to look at what was left of his daughter, I carried a lot of anger towards the driver, carried it around for a long time.

But I still felt great sympathy for him too.
Imagine having to tell your wife your daughter is dead, because your did something stupid....

Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

I am so shaking my head right now.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

I don't care about any possible future medical costs either. She caused her own grief, she can find a way to pay for the medical bills.

You should because her very high medical bills will be covered by either the UP, her insurance or the taxpayer. I presume you pay taxes.

[gabe]

I am so shaking my head right now.

[GP40-2]

Personally, I don't think this girl or her family deserves a dime for her stupidity. I don't care about any possible future medical costs either. She caused her own grief, she can find a way to pay for the medical bills. If her claim that the train had time to stop or slow down is true (I don't believe it is), then she had plenty of time to clear the car.

This is simply a case of excessive greed from her and her family. They should just be glad she is still alive.

The verdict dosen't speak well for the level of intellegence of the jury either.

Years ago, I was accepted at 3 law schools, but after some deep thought decided a legal career was not right for me. Based on the cases I hear about, I know now that was the right decision.

[railfan619]

Yeah you are all right trains do have the right of way at crossings and cars and what ever else has to stop until the train has passed. Also if your car stalls on the tracks get out and go get help but if a train is coming try to get the train enginers att. But anyway
trains need more than 1mile to stop if traveling at 55MPH. Even if the train could stop
the car would have been damaged or even totaled form the train hitting it. Well any way
Maybe she watch one of those shows and see what a train can do to a car or even a semi truck.....[banghead][banghead][#oops][2c]

[Anonymous]

No but tou can be very darn sure that someone is gona pay dear for the huge $11.7M lumpsum that the UP is being forced to pay because of some piece of scum trash for not using their head! DUU! Plus the stupid dumb comment that they made just after the jury made their judgement. People sure are hungry for money now a days and this goes to show that someone will do anything just get it. I hope that the UP fights to the bitter end.
Allan.

[Anonymous]

Don't the electrical boxes next to the tracks have emergency phone numbers just for this type of situation?

[CSXrules4eva]

Let me see.......I don't know all of what happened but I do know this much. There is no way that Missy's family or her could put eveything that happened to her on UP. He car stalled on the tracks, I personally would of gotten out as soon as this happened even if a train was comming. Because, 99 percent of the time there is no way anyone is going to survive an intense train-car collision, such as the one here. I would of told or motioned whoever was following me (in her case her boyfriend) not to try to save me and the car from the tracks but, get me out and out of harms way. If the gates were down I wouldn't of even worried about the car.
So, it's both her boyfriend and her fault for not action on the situation with common knowledge that a train could or is comming, and that their lives are more important that their possessions. However, UP is at fault if the engineer or other members of the crew weren't heads up enough to apply the brakes. I don't know if he sounded the horn or not but if he didn't than he really wasn't heads up. So in turn, if they were going to sue I wouldn't of sued for the about that they reveived 11.7 million. To me that seems very steep considering the fact that they weren't suposed to be on the tracks, while a train is comming no matter if it was a mechnical or human error. It seems to me as if they wanted to be a little greedy and dig out money from a big corperation.

Missy and her family ought to be darn greatful to God for sparing her life in that situation. They should be praying to God and worshiping Him for the mericle He gave her. They shouldn't be worried about oh How much money could I get here, so I can be greedy and fill what ever my heart desires. Mabe they should try to help others by educating them on what could happend to you at railroad crossings, to prevent others from going through what Missy did.

[Anonymous]

Here is my opinion. The trains ride on the tracks. If you are on the tracks then that is your fault. Just like if you walk out in the middle of a highway that is your fault you get hit by a vehicle.

[edblysard]

I wouldn’t count on UP winning an appeal automatically, either...

To be successful in that, UP cant argue that the award is too high, or they don’t like the verdict.

They have to be able to prove that there was a major defect in the trial, either in procedure or in the evidence, and that the defect was of such a magnitude and consequence that it would have altered the jury’s decision...

And based on what we can read in the report, there doesn’t seem to be much of a chance of either...

Ed

[eolafan]

Yes, I am sure we all did some stupid things as kids...at least I know I did...but when yoiu play with matches you are going to eventually get burned. Sure I am sorry for this girl's perdicament but she and/or her boyfrield did not use the brains God gave them and they (or at least she) paid the price for their stupidity...enough said about this subject.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

Also,

As far as the comment that UP will get the judgment anulled on apeal, don't count your chickens on that one. I can't really say my exact job right now. But, suffice it to say, I know a lot about appellate law. It is really tough to get a judgment overturned on appeal. It is not simply a matter of whether the appellate court disagrees with the jury. It takes much more than that to over turn a jury verdict.

Gabe

Butch to the Sundance Kid : Who are those guys?

Who is it that has two floors of a building in Omaha filled with lawyers?