Not to introduce politics into this board. But rather to show that three minutes of research can answer a few questions:
JUDGE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL
Judge Stengel was born in Lancaster, Pennsylvania in 1952. He is a graduate of St.
Joseph’s University and the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. From 1980 to 1990, Judge
Stengel was in private practice. In 1990, he was appointed by Governor Robert Casey to the
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas and was elected to that Court in 1991. Judge Stengel
was appointed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June
21, 2004.

At the state level, appointed by a Democrat

At the Federal level, appointed by a Republican and confirmed 97-0.

(Oooh.. Bipartisanship..nothing like harmonious agreement among the wolves about mutton for dinner, eh?)

Justice is supposed to be "blind", but this seems to be more of a cognitive deficit than a sensory one.

By now we should all be realizing the bar (especially the tort bar) is a trade union, with the interests of its members as its paramount purpose. Is it so hard to imagine a judge handing down such a ruling because the whole system is designed to reward them with everything from an obsequious clerk congratulating the judge in the cloak room on that brilliant ruling, to receiving the highest ABA rating?

The light went on for me in November 2002. There was a CSPAN (one of those channels) broadcast where a speaker to a legal organization coyly joked that the then recently passed Sarbanes-Oxley Act (passed in a big hurry in a bipartisan fashion) really should have named "The Securities Attorneys full employment Act" -in the light of day.

Every time there's an award like this, the casualty actuaries are obliged to employ their considerable math skills to raise liability rates higher-and we have the death of a thousand cuts. Lets not forget SLSTA pulled the plug explicitly on SLSF1522 explicitly due to insurance premiums, risk was a factor in the end of NS steam program and wanna bet why OC scaled it back, 819, 2102, 700, etc are usually or totally cold.

Before jumping to conclusions, I suggest reading this thread. It is an eye opener, particularly the comments of Michael Sol starting on page 2.

http://cs.trains.com/forums/1403977/ShowPost.aspx

Anyone who really wants to start reading in on the case can start here, with the Judge's ruling on some earlier motions.

It contains a long list of facts of the incident stipulated by both parties in the suit:

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06D0404P.pdf

During the trial, Stengel wrote, the railroad companies' attorneys "demeaned" the two young men "for their lack of intelligence, judgment and common sense in choosing to climb to the top of the boxcar."

So now we can override the obvious-that a 17 year old SHOULD know that trespassing and climbing up a boxcar is dangerous. That would once have been classified as "res ipsa loquitir" (the thing speaks for itself) but the facts are rendered defeasible based upon the judge's indignation over the deportment of counsel? When I served as a juror on a murder trial we were specifically enjoined not to consider anything but the facts. Culpability, if it existed, existed in 2002 and shouldn't change-even if NS/Amrak asked to have these two fellows if they were trying out for ja**a**.

Moreover the logic goes completely askew when you consider the other obvious peril to their action-falling. Would the judge then require the companies to post warnings about the effect of gravity? It is necessary that people have a complete understanding and notice of every peril that could befall them? What if wind blew them down? Where does it end?

I used to think this type of decision was merely the result of vesting near absolute power in a frail human being-now I just think its the result of a concerted effort to allow judicial processes to breach property rights for the benefit of a small group of people who take action, defend and determine the security of property owned by the rest of us.

It happens all the time. Not a year goes by when someone tries to sue a gun manufacturer for a shooting done with one of their products, many times when the firearm itself was stolen from the registered owner. Thankfully, these product liability cases often get thrown out. I find it funny that auto manufacturers are one of the staunchest supporters of gun companies in such cases. Why? Think of what would happen if that barn door got opened. If you were Ford, would you want a precedent set where someone could sue you for every time they were in an accident with someone driving one of your vehicles?

This thread, while informed, is bordering on a violation of our guidelines.

We have named names... we have discussed politics....

Not locked, but lets be careful out there....

Your currently friendly moderator, Randy

The following was old law even in 1873:

"It is well settled that conduct of an infant of tender years is not to be judged by the same rule which governs that of an adult. While it is the general rule in regard to an adult, that to entitle him to recover damages for an injury resulting from the fault or negligence of another, he must himself have been free from fault, such is not the rule in regard to an infant of tender years. The care and caution required of a child is according to his maturity and capacity only, and this is to be determined in each case by the circumstances of that case."

Railroad Company v. Stout, 84 U.S. (17 Wall) 657 (1873).

This Supreme Court decision involved a kid who took a joyride on an unlocked turntable and lost part of a foot. The full text, an easy read, may be found here:

http://www.usscplus.com/online/index.asp?case=0840657

- G.J.C.

Yup. The court now equates the actions of a pair of seventeen year old males with the actions of a six year old in 1873. Sounds about right.

With the way society has been "dumbing down" in recent years, the 1873 six year old was probably smarter.................

Now a message from another Judge:

Tuesday, April 22 is Election Day in Pennsylvania.
While how and for who you vote is a secret, you must still cast your vote to have any effect on how this country is governed.
If you are not able to vote in person, there are rules about absentee voting. If there is interest and the moderators approve, I could post that information.

James F. Boylan
Judge of Elections
Penndel Borough, Bucks County, Pennsylvania

[quote="Gary Gray"][quote="Dennis Storzek"]Yup. The court now equates the actions of a pair of seventeen year old males with the actions of a six year old in 1873. Sounds about right.[/quote]

With the way society has been "dumbing down" in recent years, the 1873 six year old was probably smarter.................[/quote]

Well, that's pretty much the point - a court will attribute responsibility to a juvenile based on his or her actual knowledge, experience and circumstances (all questions of fact, to be established through evidence) whereas an adult would generally be held to a more objective standard.

If this thread is to be a discussion of what some of us believe the law should be, we could go on all week. But for those of us who need to be concerned with what the law actually is, and how it could be applied to juvenile trespassers injured at our various museums, railroads, favorite park locomotives, etc., all of these cases should be instructive. You can chose to proceed accordingly, or you can choose to believe that in some future federal court proceeding involving your organization, you'll have an opportunity to inform the judge that the law is "wrong."

- G.J.C.

If in fact the court actually considered individuals who can (drive, marry, quit school, enlist in the armed services) and who were a year or less from being able to do just about anything else but legally consume alcohol-to be a an "infant of tenderyears" , that would be poor, no horrible, indefensible reasoning.

As I recall "infant" had a specific meaning back then-a child that hadn't attained "the age of reason", generally thought to about SEVEN, not SEVENTEEN.

What is sounds like your telling everybody is chase the kids away, because the average adult is usually stupified by a the speed by which the average child can put themselves at mortal danger-even with mundane household items. If a tourist line or historic railroad got hit with such a judgment, I'd hate to think what that would mean to insurance rates-assuming coverage remained available.

And the result:

Of course, the young pistol, freshly outgrowing Thomas the Tank Engine, isn't allowed anywhere near the property in a productive or educational fashion until he's too distracted by college work, earning a living, beer, or romantic interests.

Oh wow, he is good. I kowtow to the master. I want to apprentice in Internet flaming with that guy. Wow. Just wow.