Well, it is kind of a joke... but not a ha-ha joke. Better be careful where you park your equipment at your museum or railroad. This sets a dangerous precedent. Now excuse me as I continue pounding my head into the keyboard.



http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/219163

Seems nobody is responsible for their own actions these days. A key thing to note in this case is that you can't use the fact that they were trespassing as a defense.

Bill

Its interesting to note that all of the comments about the story share your opinion, and probably everyone here at RYPN shares that same opinion. I read how the jusdge considered the pain, anguish and disfugurement to help him reach his verdict. Those are consequences but what he should have been judging were the actions taken by the young men.

A live catenary wire is not a "hazard". It is a neccessary component of a transportation system.

I am in favor of a Federal law that would state that any injuries suffered by someone who is engaged in trespassing is not actionable. If you knowingley let someone on your property then you have a repsonisbility to protect that person from harm. If they come without your permission then how can you protect them if you do not know they are there?

Perhaps the next time someone complains about the condition of the Amfleet car they are riding in or if they complain about how dirty the Lancaster station is then Amtrak can hand them a copy of this article and let the passenger know where the money to fix the property up went to.

The answer can be found in the last line of the article:

"Jurors determined Norfolk Southern and Amtrak could have prevented the accident by placing warning signs alerting people to the electrified catenary wires, which power locomotives, Roda said."


Beyond belief. Truly. NOBODY reads, much less heeds, signs.

How utterly pathetic. Nothing new unfortunately. What a sad state of affairs we find ourselves in and no wonder so many railroad companies are so reluctant to railfan activity. Good way to get some money by trespassing!

How come we never hear of kids running off a runway?

Joshua

I am in favor of a Federal law that would state that any injuries suffered by someone who is engaged in trespassing is not actionable. If you knowingley let someone on your property then you have a repsonisbility to protect that person from harm. If they come without your permission then how can you protect them if you do not know they are there?
You can bet your bottom dollar that some judge would dispose of such a law as "unconstitutional" by inferring some "right" in the "unenumberated penumbrae" of the US Constitution, or they would find it inconsistent with the "customs" of tresspassers.

The founding fathers were extremely conscious of the potential of the judiciary to become imperial and overbearing. Unfortunately, they never envisioned a system where an insular educational system regards language as an infinitely malleable tool to dispose of laws that don't meet the personal sniff test of a judge.

This is representative of something I have wondered greatly about over the last few years. How is it that people can win lawsuits, the subject matter of which would never have occured if they themselves had not been breaking the law?
This case seems to be especially crazy due to the increased severity of trespassing on railroad property since 9/11. It comes down to this though, if the judge did not see that he himself could do something equally as mindless then he would not have ruled in favor...just my opinion or fact?

"The level of any discussion is given by the least informed party or the one whose intelligence has been least trained."
L.D.Porta

Anyone else here familiar with the concept of "attractive nuisance"? That's laregly the legal basis for this decision.You can't help but wonder if they'd have judged the same thing even if there were signs there.

As an attorney myself, I'd be interested to see the difference if the "victims" were Boomer "fifty somethings" packing cameras. You can bet they would have been hosed.

Usually, to go with "attractive nuisance" you need to prove that there was prior activity known to the property owner by children. In most courts, 17 year-olds should have trouble proving that they are "children" for purposes of the doctrine. Perhaps not the case in the Northeast.

The next thing will be that RR's will be required to insulate their catenary wires to prevent "accidental" electricution.... If I were one of those kids, as soon as I was better, my dad would have dealt with me, (which would guarantee that I would think twice in the future) and no trial would have come of it. That is just the problem in our society today - parents are no longer parents the way they used to be, only the "village" is qualified to raise our young.

Amazing. Once again, the legislative branch of our great country proves that they suffer from "cranial-rectal inversion" in cases such as this one. I suppose we next will sue bed manufacturers for using steel spring coils that go flat and cause us to have lower back pain,. After all, the manufacturer knows that eventually the coils lose tension...even if there are no "signs" posted to that SPECIFIC hazard...

This verdict shouldn't really surprise anyone on this board. The two defendants (Amtrak and NS) are perceived by many, including the judge, as faceless, multi-million dollar corporations that can afford a $24.2M settlement. The rationale is that a settlement (large or small) affects "no one". The people handing down the judgment do not understand the concept of stockholders, shippers, riders or the other entities who will somehow be relieved of their benefit of their portion of the $24.2M. Many of the citizens who stand to right the wrong, by not re-electing the judge (assuming that it is an elelcted position and not appointed), think that this is another example of government protecting them from "dangerous situations which are thrown their way everyday by uncaring, powerful entities." So this judge will continue to hand down verdicts based on his heart instead of on his law books. This in turn sets a precedent that may effect similar future cases. The verdict makes about as much sense a citizen crossing an multi-lane interstate highway without the benefit of an overpass or an underpass and then sueing the operator of the vehicle which struck him/her or the state for not warning potential idiots to not cross the traffic lanes. Maybe this judge handled the McDonald's hot-coffee-in-the-woman's-crotch case. Someone won that one, too. And so it goes.

Don C.

Most disappointing is that this was at the appellate level; this is a Federal appeals judge. These are not elected judges, but rather are appointed by the president. Most likely a Clinton appointee, he "feels their pain."

This isn't a partisan thing. There's more than enough blame to go around on both sides of the aisle.