Like the situation with CP 2816 in Mexico. I fully agree with you there because looking at the videos of how much attention there was before the 2816 struck that lady, it’s eye opening. When was the last time there was a mainline steam tour in Mexico like that? The 80’s?

Believe it or not, one of the points railroad lawyers always make when evaluating on a proposed steam event is the " attractive nuisance" factor. Anyone traveling to witness a steam event can sue the railroad as being at fault by offering this " attractive nuisance" that "made " them travel to see it and thus get into the accident.

So if I travel to Disney World and get into an accident I can sue Disney for having a theme park open? I don't think so haha.

You certainly can sue (to the depth or your pocketbook) or at least begin proceedings. It is just extremely doubtful you would win..............mld

Such suits are usually instigated at the prodding of eager law firms in the hopes of finding a jury pool of sympathetic suckers (which unfortunately happens more often than we care to admit, usually with stories showing up in national media over the lunacy of such verdicts), and/or the hopes of a deep-pocketed defendant or its insurers rushing to "settle out of court." Some of these "ludicrous" awards are often reduced or overturned on appeal, with much less attendant publicity.

A jury-list was made out, and Mr. B. L., a prominent banker and a valued citizen, was questioned precisely as he would have been questioned in any court in America:

"Have you heard of this homicide?"
"Yes."
"Have you held conversations upon the subject?"
"Yes."
"Have you formed or expressed opinions about it?"
"Yes."
"Have you read the newspaper accounts of it?"
"Yes."
"We do not want you."

A minister, intelligent, esteemed, and greatly respected; a merchant of high character and known probity; a mining superintendent of intelligence and unblemished reputation; a quartz mill owner of excellent standing, were all questioned in the same way, and all set aside. Each said the public talk and the newspaper reports had not so biased his mind but that sworn testimony would overthrow his previously formed opinions and enable him to render a verdict without prejudice and in accordance with the facts. But of course such men could not be trusted with the case. Ignoramuses alone could mete out unsullied justice.

When the peremptory challenges were all exhausted, a jury of twelve men was impaneled--a jury who swore they had neither heard, read, talked about nor expressed an opinion concerning a murder which the very cattle in the corrals, the Indians in the sage-brush and the stones in the streets were cognizant of! It was a jury composed of two desperadoes, two low beer-house politicians, three bar-keepers, two ranchmen who could not read, and three dull, stupid, human donkeys! It actually came out afterward, that one of these latter thought that incest and arson were the same thing.

The verdict rendered by this jury was, Not Guilty. What else could one expect?