Trains.com

Family of woman suing Tex-Mex Railway

3793 views
60 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 627 posts
Posted by exPalaceDog on Thursday, June 8, 2006 9:43 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by igoldberg

The judge should make the family pay the railroad for the following costs after blasting the family for bringing a frivelous law suit.
Court costs
Attorney fees
Deposition costs
Pay for all employees while dealing with the suit,
All travel expences
Making the family pay thousands of dollars will discourage this kind of law suit.




Wrong! Making their lawyer pay would be much more effective! The family probably don't have the money anyway. You can't get blood from a turnip.

Have fun
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 8, 2006 9:47 AM
If they (the railroad) aren't doing anything wrong, then they should have nothing to worry about [:O][:O][:O]
  • Member since
    July 2005
  • From: Omaha-ish, Nebraska
  • 703 posts
Posted by DrummingTrainfan on Thursday, June 8, 2006 10:23 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

If they (the railroad) aren't doing anything wrong, then they should have nothing to worry about [:O][:O][:O]



In theory anyway, unfortunately as we all know juries have a tendency to be far off of what makes sense.

Hmm, unfortunately in history class this year we concentrated on criminal prosecution when studying the constitution; so maybe one of our friends here in the law enforcement profession can help. Just like in a criminal case, can the defendant in a civil case waive his right to a trial by jury? I would think that a judge would be less likely to get swayed by a hot-shot lawyer than a couple average joes would; and thus make a decision based on the facts, not emotion.
    GIFs from http://www.trainweb.org/mccann/offer.htm -Erik, the displaced CNW, Bears, White Sox, Northern Illnois Huskies, Amtrak and Metra fan.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 8, 2006 10:43 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan



In theory anyway, unfortunately as we all know juries have a tendency to be far off of what makes sense.




LOL, I think you may have missed my playful attempt at satire here. I was poking fun at the people who generally view 'law and order' issues with a Salem, Massachusetts perspective. [}:)]
  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: US
  • 13,488 posts
Posted by Mookie on Thursday, June 8, 2006 11:07 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Poppa_Zit

Once again, I shall weigh in on this by expousing my standard reply to these capricious and supercilious actions:

These shenanigans are why Richard III Duke of York said what he said to John Cade in Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part 2.



Ok - I waited and no one said anything, so now I have to ask - what did he say?

Mookie

She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 8, 2006 11:13 AM
Shakespeare said that the first thing we should do is "kill all the lawyers", Mook.
  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: US
  • 13,488 posts
Posted by Mookie on Thursday, June 8, 2006 11:51 AM
Oh my! That seems a little drastic for a profession that provides us with so much humor!

She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Thursday, June 8, 2006 11:55 AM
Not to mention all the groundskeepers and caddys that would be out of work!

Ed[8D]

23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    November 2002
  • From: NL
  • 614 posts
Posted by MStLfan on Thursday, June 8, 2006 4:44 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by dekemd

The easiest way to stop these frivilous lawsuits is to pass a law requiring the plaintiff to pay ALL court costs and legal fees for BOTH sides if they lose.

You don''t have that?[%-)]
We do have a similar system here in the Netherlands.[:D] and we certainly don't have those kind of lawsuits.
Marc Immeker
For whom the Bell Tolls John Donne From Devotions upon Emergent Occasions (1623), XVII: Nunc Lento Sonitu Dicunt, Morieris - PERCHANCE he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that.
  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: SE Wisconsin
  • 1,181 posts
Posted by solzrules on Thursday, June 8, 2006 5:05 PM
I think they should sue anyone remotely connected to the railroad in any way. This may increase their chances at a nice payday for the lawyer.

Oh wait, that's what they are doing.

What a huge, steaming, pile of bull****!


You think this is bad? Just wait until inflation kicks in.....
  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,499 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Thursday, June 8, 2006 7:26 PM
If you take the familiies houses, posessions and cars then people will think twice about suing for stupid reasons. Making the lawyers pay will only make them chase more ambulances!!!
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 8, 2006 7:56 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by igoldberg

The judge should make the family pay the railroad for the following costs after blasting the family for bringing a frivelous law suit.
Court costs
Attorney fees
Deposition costs
Pay for all employees while dealing with the suit,
All travel expences
Making the family pay thousands of dollars will discourage this kind of law suit.




Guys--

Alice. Jim Wells County. Home of Box 13/Landslide Lyndon. There's a reason suit was filed there.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 8, 2006 10:17 PM
I hope T-M fights this case and wins because these lawsuits are stupid and a massive waste of resources. But in the case of a on-the job accident that is the company's fault that would be different but a stupid women getting killed due to her own stupidy I am SORRY that shouldn't be in court.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,794 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Thursday, June 8, 2006 10:30 PM
drephpe: I assume you have been to Alice (we have)....most of the housing there has no value. (liabilities on the other hand......) I'm guessing this "incident" happened east of the Depot & yard in the downtown area....
Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, June 9, 2006 12:07 AM
"Landslide Lyndon"

LMAO!!
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,370 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Friday, June 9, 2006 1:29 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by igoldberg

If you take the familiies houses, posessions and cars then people will think twice about suing for stupid reasons. Making the lawyers pay will only make them chase more ambulances!!!


Well, then take away the lawyers' houses, posessions and cars. Make 'em start over every time they file one of these stupid actions.
"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: The Netherlands
  • 104 posts
Posted by sgtbean1 on Friday, June 9, 2006 2:31 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by marcimmeker

QUOTE: Originally posted by dekemd

The easiest way to stop these frivilous lawsuits is to pass a law requiring the plaintiff to pay ALL court costs and legal fees for BOTH sides if they lose.

You don''t have that?[%-)]
We do have a similar system here in the Netherlands.[:D] and we certainly don't have those kind of lawsuits.
Marc Immeker

Yes, it certainly helps to keep those suits out of court if you let the plaintiff pay all fees if he loses. But also because we don't have the laws that justify law suits like that. You can certainly try, but any lawyer will strongly advise against it, except in cases where there was really some form of criminal neglect.

If I recall correctly for example, the train driver that got so many suicide-by-train accidents in a few years time without any counceling afterwards from NS (Dutch Railways that is, not Norfolk Southern [;)]), that the man was affraid to go even near the tracks for years after he quit his job. He dragged NS into court for incurred medical costs, lost income and emotional damages and he won (and rightfully so; the man still woke up sobbing because at night he re-lived the accidents again and again). But even then: the sum awarded to him was a REALLIFE calculation of costs and losses; not just a sum of a few millions grabbed out of thin air. He got a few hundred-thousand euro's, partly because he was unable to work anymore and to cover legal fees incurred. He didn't get rich.

In any other case, you've pretty much lost before even appearing in court.

Ow yeah, it may also help that we (in the Netherlands) don't have a trail by jury system, but rather an independant judge that makes the final ruling. They tend to know what parts of the law apply, because... well... pretty obvious I think.[8D]
Failure is not an option -- it comes bundled with Windows Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips."
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • 913 posts
Posted by mersenne6 on Friday, June 9, 2006 9:45 AM
Assuming the reporting of the story is what happened there seems to be a factor everyone has overlooked - the possibility that the judge may have more than two brain cells to rub together. I have a family member who was the target of an absurd suit of this type. I do know that judges can and do dismiss the whole thing before it goes anywhere.

In the case of the family member, we showed up, sat in the courtroom, the judge entered, called both lawyers to the front ,and read the prosecuting lawyer the riot act. In fact her exact words were, "Even if your clients don't know, it is your responsibility to know, that this suit has no merit. If you ever bring a case like this in front of this court again I will take action against you. Dismissed. " ...and we exited stage right.
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Duluth,Minnesota,USA
  • 4,015 posts
Posted by coborn35 on Friday, June 9, 2006 9:58 AM
They need to put a disclaimer on their No Tresspassing signs, waving all legal liability for any moron who decides to walk on their tracks.

Mechanical Department  "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."

The Missabe Road: Safety First

 

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Elmwood Park, NJ
  • 2,385 posts
Posted by trainfan1221 on Friday, June 9, 2006 10:25 AM
There is much anger and vengeance on this particular post. Way to go! People will sue over anything, and all too often the people who don't deserve to will have to pay up.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: K.C.,MO.
  • 1,063 posts
Posted by rrandb on Friday, June 9, 2006 8:35 PM
What can you say when you find out that a cruise ship full of lawyers on there annual convention sank with no survivors? [?] IT'S A START [(-D]
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, June 9, 2006 9:25 PM
Current No Tresspassing signs must not be effective.

Time to get a design competition going to design new No Tresspassing signs.

We can get design firms from all across North America working on this.

The NO TRESSPASSING Design Competition could be paid for with some of the grant money that roads like NS and CN have available.

Andrew Falconer
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, June 9, 2006 9:33 PM
How about if we just alow trespassers to be shot on sight, and give road crews bonuses for how many they can bag during their shift?

extra points if the trespasser has a camera. [}:)]
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Traveling in Middle Earth
  • 795 posts
Posted by Sterling1 on Friday, June 9, 2006 9:40 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

How about if we just alow trespassers to be shot on sight, and give road crews bonuses for how many they can bag during their shift?

extra points if the trespasser has a camera. [}:)]


Maybe they'll have to get training from Harry Callahan !! [}:)]
"There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.]
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: K.C.,MO.
  • 1,063 posts
Posted by rrandb on Friday, June 9, 2006 9:44 PM
NS just got a grant for a woodpecker forest. They will need new signs anyway. Lets ask them for the money. Train,,,,, Bird,,,,, Should just be a few key stokes at the sign making plant. [2c]
  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Saturday, June 10, 2006 8:44 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

How about if we just alow trespassers to be shot on sight, and give road crews bonuses for how many they can bag during their shift?

extra points if the trespasser has a camera. [}:)]

Did you ever see the movie "Death Race 2000" with David Carradine and Sylvester Stallone? It's about a cross-country car race where the drivers earn extra points for each pedestrial they run over; old people and children score extra. The movie is way campy and very funny as long as you do not take the concept seriously.
  • Member since
    August 2004
  • 263 posts
Posted by upchuck on Saturday, June 10, 2006 10:29 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by exPalaceDog

QUOTE: Originally posted by Hugh Jampton

Don't balme the family,, they were more than likely talked into it by some smooth talking lawyer.


The lawyer may be "smooth talking" but he is NOT dumb. If the case goes to court, it will cost the railroad say $25,000 to pay their lawyers to prepare their defense. Hence, it is cheaper to pay say $10,000 to the lawyer to go away. After the lawyer deducts his fee plus expenses, don't look for the family to see much cash.

Have fun


[oX)] 99% of lawyers give the other 1% a bad name...
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, June 10, 2006 1:08 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz


Did you ever see the movie "Death Race 2000" with David Carradine and Sylvester Stallone? It's about a cross-country car race where the drivers earn extra points for each pedestrial they run over; old people and children score extra.


No never have seen that one, ...neat concept though

kind of a cross between the Baja 1000 and civilian border patrol eh?
  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Sunday, June 11, 2006 2:33 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz


Did you ever see the movie "Death Race 2000" with David Carradine and Sylvester Stallone? It's about a cross-country car race where the drivers earn extra points for each pedestrial they run over; old people and children score extra.


No never have seen that one, ...neat concept though

kind of a cross between the Baja 1000 and civilian border patrol eh?

Something like that, yeah. The movie is also a bit of a jab at people's obsession with "sports" and "politics". And then there are the old people that intentionally wheel themselves out of their nursing homes and place themselves directly in the path of the race cars...

One of Roger Corman's 'best'.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, June 11, 2006 3:52 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

drephpe: I assume you have been to Alice (we have)....most of the housing there has no value. (liabilities on the other hand......) I'm guessing this "incident" happened east of the Depot & yard in the downtown area....


MC--

Yep. Been there. Done that.

Not a popular venue for defendants.

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