The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Let's Talk Tort: Recent Amtrak Ruling
Roanth
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
After reading through the spirited debate on the McDonald's hot coffee thread, I was wondering where people came down on this case (happened in 2002 but ruling wasn't made until Oct 27).
While it appears that Amtrak and Norfolk were aware of the risk, the injured parties did trespass and decide to climb on top of the train cars, which had the visible power wires above them (at least that is my take of it - the article is written in a very slanted way towards the boys. "View of the city" my ass). I think they are entitled to medical damages and lost future earmings but the punitive amounts seem a bit excessive. Thoughts?
Jury Awards $24.2 Million to Boys Injured on Amtrak Tracks
Posted on : Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:48:00 GMT | Author : RodaNast, P.C.
News Category : PressRelease
PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- A Philadelphia federal jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania yesterday awarded total damages of $24.2 million against Amtrak and Norfolk Southern for electrical burn injuries suffered on August 10, 2002 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania by two 17-year-old boys, Jeffrey Klein and Brett Birdwell.
The boys lived in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, but were visiting Klein's mother in Lancaster. They went skateboarding in the neighborhood, and at about 10:00 p.m. came to the parking lot of a former convenience store, at an intersection in a mixed residential/commercial area in Lancaster City.
About fifty feet behind the parking lot was a side track of Amtrak, where Norfolk Southern had parked a 29-car train the day before. Amtrak leased the track to Norfolk Southern to park trains there when Norfolk Southern's train yard was full.
The evidence showed that the boys saw the train parked behind the store, that one of the cars had ladders on each corner and a catwalk around the top, and that the boys decided to climb up and see what the view was of the city. There were no drugs, alcohol or vandalism involved.
Unknown to the boys was the presence of a fully energized, 12,000 volt catenary electrical wire just six feet above the boxcars. There were no signs of any kind warning of high voltage or electricity, nor even a readily visible "No Trespassing" sign on Amtrak's right of way.
Within minutes of the boys' reaching the top of one of the boxcars, an arc of electricity struck Jeffrey Klein, inflicting second and third degree burns over 75% of his body. Brett Birdwell, who was walking behind Klein on the catwalk, went to Klein's rescue, pulling Klein's burning clothes off him, and received second degree burns over 12% of his body.
Klein spent 75 days in Temple University's Burn Care Unit, underwent twelve surgeries, and has permanent, severe scars over his burn and donor sites, as well as permanent disability from injuries to his left hand and back.
Birdwell spent twelve days at Crozier Chester Medical Center's Burn Unit, and a year recovering. He is now in the armed forces in Afghanistan.
Klein and Birdwell sued Amtrak and Norfolk Southern for unnecessarily creating a highly dangerous risk to the public, especially teenage boys.
After an eleven-day trial, the jury found Amtrak 70% responsible for the boys' injuries and Norfolk Southern 30% responsible.
At trial, the boys' attorney, Joseph F. Roda, of RodaNast, P.C., Lancaster, argued that the catenary wire should not have been left energized while the train was parked under it. The train was pulled onto the tracks with a diesel, and no other train could use the tracks, or need the power from the catenary, while the 29-car train was parked there.
Plaintiffs introduced evidence that both Amtrak and Norfolk Southern know that the dangers of catenary lines are not generally known or obvious to the public, and that both companies, and railroad companies generally, have long required all employees who work in electrified territory to take annual training and tests on the dangers of catenary wires. The training warns them that the catenary lines have dangerous high voltage, that the voltage in the catenary lines is strong enough to "arc" into someone without the person's touching the wire, and that a person should never get onto the top of a boxcar parked under such a line unless the line has been de-energized and grounded.
Evidence was also introduced that the Federal Railroad Administration, in a report to Congress in 1971, warned that the general public was not aware of the dangers of catenary wires, that juveniles in particular were at risk of danger from them, and that the railroad industry should adopt the use of signs (such as with lightning bolts and stickmen) alerting the public to catenary wire dangers.
Plaintiffs also showed the jury internal Amtrak memoranda, as well as testimony from Amtrak officers in federal court in the mid-1980s, that showed Amtrak's awareness of the risk to the public from the combination of parked trains under live catenary wires in urban areas.
The jury awarded Klein $340,000 for past medical bills; $197,000 for estimated future medical bills; $1.6 million for future lost earning capacity; $9 million for pain and suffering, scarring, humiliation, and loss of life's pleasures; and punitive damages of $4.375 million against Amtrak and $1.375 million against Norfolk Southern.
The jury awarded Birdwell $288,000 for past medical bills; $300,000 for pain and suffering; and the same amounts as Klein in punitive damages against Amtrak ($4.375 million) and Norfolk Southern ($1.375 million).
The trial was conducted before the Honorable Lawrence F. Stengel of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The jury consisted of eight persons chosen from the nine southeastern counties in Pennsylvania.
Amtrak and Norfolk Southern were represented by Paul F. Gallagher, of Gallagher and Rowan in Philadelphia.
RodaNast, P.C.
While it appears that Amtrak and Norfolk were aware of the risk, the injured parties did trespass and decide to climb on top of the train cars, which had the visible power wires above them (at least that is my take of it - the article is written in a very slanted way towards the boys. "View of the city" my ass). I think they are entitled to medical damages and lost future earmings but the punitive amounts seem a bit excessive. Thoughts?
Roanth on
0
Posts
This ought to have been an important part of the trial.
I believe though, that private property does not absolve the owners of liability for negligent behaviour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance
The difference here, I would think, would be that the kids knew what they were doing was wrong, but decided to do it anyway. I'm sure all they thought would happen would be that one of them could fall and hurt themselves, and I imagine this is where some dispute arises. Is it THEIR fault, because they knowingly trespassed...but got hurt in ways they had not supposed? Or is it the company's fault because the live wire was not supposed to be there, and if it had not been there, the boys would not have sustained such an injury, although they may have gotten hurt in some other way?
If I was going to compare this to another, hypothetical situation, in which the boys fell off the car and sued the company, I'd take it all differently. In THAT case, I would say it would be 100% the boys' fault, obviously. But in this case, I would say both parties were at fault - the boys and the company.
I'd agree with the payment of the medical bills, but as far as I'm concerned, nothing else.
That about covers it then.
Let's take a look at all the conditions that must apply for it to be deemed an attractive nuisance
I think that #3 poses a problem here. These are 17-year olds climbing on trains they know they shouldn't be on with visible power lines swinging 6 ft above said train.
Normal power lights don't arc in that manner. As evidenced by the fact that you can GRAB them and nothing happens- they're only dangerous when broken or if you do some fairly complicated stupid shit with them.
this wasn't the case here. And punitive damaged are -supposed- to be fairly large; they're basically fines.
I've got to disagree here. If I own equipment, store it on private property, and enclose it with a fence or store it in a building of some sort, it's the jackasses fault that climbed on top of it if he gets hurt.
They've already broken one law by trespassing, why should I have to pay the medical bills incurred as a result of their illegal and stupid actions?
Negligence is negligence whether the injured party was trespassing or not.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But their injuries weren't the result of Amtrak's lack of signage. They were the result of their dumb asses climbing up on a train car that didn't belong to them.
I could understand claiming Amtrak was neglegent if they created a danger in a public area, but common sense tells people not to go scampering around in a train yard. Especially at night. And especially when you don't work there and know the risks.
It may not be the way the law is written, but if they're going to trespass I think they deserve what they get. It's not like Amtrak ordered one of their workers to go up there, these kids chose to trespass and they chose to go up on the train car.
There's got to be a measure of personal responsibility here somewhere, and I think that line ought to be "when I break the law or do something blatantly stupid, I can't hold the property owner or product designer liable. I shouldn't trespass and expect to be safe, and I shouldn't operate electronics in the bath tub. Just because GE didn't think to say "electricity + water = bad" is no excuse. Ignorance should not absolve one of responsibility, especially at the age of 17."
Their actions were illegal, but not stupid. That is the difference.
Had they been hit by a train, or any other expected danger it wouldnt have been an issue.
Man, this logic really gets up my nose.
Tort law is not a fucking revenue-earner. It's not a way for someone to make a profit off an injury. You shouldn't be looking down your fucking nose at someone who's been permenantly disabled, as if they're somehow profiteering by trying to get damages.
Tort law is the law of obligations. As a landowner, I owe an obligation to everyone else that my land is safe. That's for a whole number of reasons - because trespass is such a minor tort; because there are such a wide range of legal trespasses (etc, going onto someone's land to fetch a dog that's run off - to avoid roadworks, etc). If my land is not safe, and someone gets hurt on it, they're entitled to sue me for damages. It doesn't fucking matter if they're a trespasser - I've let them down, and failed to uphold my obligations. If I want to sue them in trespass, I'm perfectly entitled to - because they've breached another completely different obligation they owe to me not to trespass on my land.
If I breach my obligations to someone and that breach results in an injury, I am liable. It doesn't matter if the person injured is the goddamn president of the US or a multiple-rapist, I am in the wrong.
Not stupid? There were climbing on equipment that they knew nothing about. Trains run at night and you aren't familiar with the environment (unless they both happened to work there, too). That alone, makes exploring and playing on heavy equipment at night stupid.
And they expected those dangers and took care not to get squished by them. They accepted those dangers when they tresspassed.
The situation with your home (it sounds like you're talking about a home anyway) is different from that of trespassing in an industrial or mass transit area. Industrial areas and mass transit infrastructure are not safe; that's why people aren't allowed to lollygag in them.
Assuming there's a fence (because most trainyards have a fence around them), the dumbasses circumvented measures designed to keep people away from harmful things. They then climbed on top of a fucking train. Regardless of whether they were trespassing, they had to have known that the top of a train in a trainyard at night is not the safest place to be. I mean, engineers don't sit down and think "how can we make this shit safer for dumbasses that might climb on it at night after trespassing in the trainyard?" And they shouldn't have to. It's a fucking trainyard, not an amusement park, some guy's property in a neighborhood, or the lobby of a hotel. It's not a place designed for random passersby to be, and that alone is reason enough that they don't deserve compensation. If there weren't being retards they wouldn't have gotten hurt.
Should I have a reasonable expectation that I'll be safe when I walk up your driveway? Yes, because it is universally understood that people walk on driveways to get to people's front doors. Should I have that same reasonable expectation of safety when I break into the construction site you happen to own and fall in a hole? No, because I don't fucking belong there, and there's no reason for me to be there. Especially outside of business hours, in the dark, when I don't work for you.
The law should not protect idiocy.
All in all, this is a text-book attractive nuisance.
It fricking rocks.
Punitive: To Punish.
As in the purpose of charging that amount of money was to punish Amtrack and deter similar offenses in the future. As in it has nothing to do with what the boys deserve or not.
indeed. My problem with punitive damages is that regardless of legal justification they reward stupidity.
I wish there was a way that the majority of punitive damnages could go to charity or something. It would have the same effect(punishing the company) and would help to mitigate frivolous lawsuits and the public response to them.
Not that I belive there is some sort of way of rewarding stuff to an unnammed third party in a law suit under current laws.
like, money for damages goes(medical costs, court costs, and pain and suffering) go to the plantif, and punitive damages go to charity.
If you believe the justice system works once it is engaged, then it is in the interest of the greater good to have it engaged as often as possible.
The question of frivolous accusations of misconduct only really begin to be an issue if you feel as though bad court decisions are being made. But more often than not it isn't that people think that bad decisions are being made as to liability - they simply have an emotional reaction to the amount of the punitive damages awarded, thinking they are excessive. But this is stupid, for reasons I've already pointed out.
A -ranged attack- is a bit much for your average dumbfuck to guess at.
Even your average dumbfuck knows that it's not safe to break into areas where heavy equipment is stored and play on it. Had they not broken into the trainyard and climbed up on the equipment, they wouldn't have been hurt.
How the hell is it anybody's fault but theirs that they illegally entered a work zone, climbed on the equipment, and got hurt. They had no reason to be on that property for two reasons: the trainyard wasn't open, and they don't work there.
People should have a reasonable expectation of safety in places where it can reasonably expected that they would travel. I don't reasonably expect to ever be in an unattended trainyard on top of a traincar after hours when I don't even work for Amtrak.
If this were an employee who was ordered to go service the top of that traincar, it'd be different, but, seriously, there has got to be a measure of personal responsibility applied here. You choose to do dumb shit, and you've got the face the consequences, not sue the ever-loving fuck out of the guy you trespassed against.
td;dr The law should not protect stupid people from their own idiocy.
I don't think it's reasonable to believe that the kids should have known that the power lines at an operational train yard were going to shoot lightning bolts at them. I wouldn't expect any properly-maintained power lines to do such a thing, on private property or not.
And my point is that they should have expected danger. Like I said, if this were an employee, the circumstances would be different. It can be reasonably assumed that if you play in an operational work site you're going to get hurt. It shouldn't matter that it was a power line that did it. They never would have been hurt by the power line if they hadn't been fucking around by the train in the trainyard where they never should have been in the first place. Their burns are their own fault.
I don't know that it's obvious at all that they're a "going to cast magic missile at you" hazard.
It's obvious that they're dangerous. They're conduits for electricity. Electricity hurts people. Electricity wants to be grounded. The closer you get to them (like by climbing on a train car), the more likely you are to become a conduit for electricity yourself.
Obviously dangerous.
Even so, electricity is dangerous. This is common sense. Avoid electric lines, avoid being accidentally shocked by them. This isn't rocket science.
Regardless of your rather closeted views vis-a-vis personal responsibility, the simple fact of the matter is that the law says that something presenting one kind of obvious danger doesn't suddenly erase any and all legal liability if it injures someone through a different sort of danger entirely.
Regardless of current tort law, do you honestly believe that their plight is in any way Amtrak's fault?
They trespassed on an operational job site, proceeded to play on the traincars, and then got hurt. It's not Amtraks' fault that these two guys are braindead, regardless of whether a court orders them to pay damages. It's not Amtrak's job to make sure random people don't do stupid shit on their property. It's Amtraks' job to make sure that customers and employees aren't injured as part of the travel/employment process, not to make sure that vandals are as safe as humanly possible.
Your argument: They're electrical lines, and electricity is dangerous, so the danger was obvious.
That simply does not make sense. Within what range is it dangerous? 6 feet? 10 feet? Am I safe even standing outside the fence? Oh, wait, there was no fence. How close can I get before I get raped by lighting? Are those power-lines even of the rape-you-by-lightning sort?
There's no way for me to know the answers to any of these questions, because the danger isn't the least bit obvious, and there isn't a single sign to spell it out.