As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Let's Talk Tort: Recent Amtrak Ruling

13»

Posts

  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    Shinto wrote:
    If you do something stupid, its your fault. not the person who's property you trespassed in. If the kids were hit by a train, we wouldnt even be talking about this.

    Climbing on a train car is a stupid and dangerous act, even without the wire.

    So you're more or less abandoning your claim that this court ruling promotes stupid activity then I guess.

    As a future parent, I'm going to reassert my statement that I prefer systems that prevent serious injury to kids who act like kids.

    No im just saying that the system has loopholes which promote stupidty.

    But if no one else has done it, then the system didn't promote it.
    Sure, it could prevent some kids from being harmed, but why should somebody be forced to take measures to protect trespassers going into a dangerous area? Obviously, the kids don't care about the owner's rights when they trespass, so why should they care about the kids.

    Kids don't have the judgement a lot of the time to keep themselves safe.

    Your argument is basically that we shouldn't protect children from being electrocuted because it's unfair. It isn't really fair that a kid who doesn't have the judgement to not hurt themself should suffer terrible scars for the rest of their life, or have that life cut short in an accident.

    Between those two unfairnesses, I choose the one where less people are injured or killed.

    Shinto on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    jclast wrote:
    You said that my analogy was stupid because my banister could have broken under normal circumstances. I don't think it's stupid because the crook trespassed on my property and hurt himself in the process. Similarly, an Amtrak employee could have been shocked under normal circumstances (performing maintenance, etc.) just like the kids were shocked when the illegally climbed up on top of the traincar to admire the view

    That's what I thought. This directly clashes with your claim that the punitive damages were inappropriate because the kids were trespassing. But the punitive damages were to punish Amtrak for gross negligence. You say that an Amtrak employee, up on the train for a legal and legitimate reason, could have been just as easily shocked as those kids were, and you don't see how this invalidates your entire "they were trespassing, they deserved it" argument?

    Aroused Bull on
  • jclastjclast Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    jclast wrote:
    You said that my analogy was stupid because my banister could have broken under normal circumstances. I don't think it's stupid because the crook trespassed on my property and hurt himself in the process. Similarly, an Amtrak employee could have been shocked under normal circumstances (performing maintenance, etc.) just like the kids were shocked when the illegally climbed up on top of the traincar to admire the view

    That's what I thought. This directly clashes with your claim that the punitive damages were inappropriate because the kids were trespassing. But the punitive damages were to punish Amtrak for gross negligence. You say that an Amtrak employee, up on the train for a legal and legitimate reason, could have been just as easily shocked as those kids were, and you don't see how this invalidates your entire "they were trespassing, they deserved it" argument?

    I didn't mean to imply that the kids deserved to be maimed. What I don't think they deserved was the $24 million punitive damages. I understand that the damages are punishing Amtrak, but in so doing the kids are being rewarded for their stupidity. This is why I like the idea of punitive damages being paid to a charity (possibly of the plaintiff's choosing). This way, the defendant(s)'s medical bills are paid for (since it was Amtrak's negligence), Amtrak is punished for said negligence, and a charity gets some much-needed money that would go to a good cause.

    I'm sorry that the kids got hurt, but the only time the injured party ought to be compensated, in my opinion, above and beyond medical costs is when they had a legitimate reason to be where they were. "I wanted to check out the view from this sweet train car that I have no business playing on" is not a legitimate reason. "My boss told me to go work there" is a legitimate reason. "I was walking on the sidewalk" is a legitimate reason. "I was trespassing" is not.

    I'm all for protecting kids, but that doesn't mean that I can't be against promoting stupidity.

    jclast on
    camo_sig2.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    jclast wrote:
    I understand that the damages are punishing Amtrak, but in so doing the kids are being rewarded for their stupidity.

    You say this as though, seeing the award, other kids are going to run out to maim themselves and possibly ruin/end their lives in order to get a piece of this sweet punitive pie. To be honest, given the choice of going through what these kids went through for $24 million, I'd probably pass...money isn't everything.

    Now, perhaps there should be some phase after the award where a jury of your peers decides what portion of whatever punitives are awarded you should get, and what portion should go to a charity (or whatever). Make it anything from 0%-100%. Of course, this would just create more billable hours for attorneys and further complicate the system...but perhaps it would be a worthy reform.

    Personally I see no problem with the punitives going to the plaintiff, though. It's not a reward, really...and it's just easier that way. I really only care to see companies lose money for their negligence, I don't care where it goes. And honestly in many cases I don't see it as any sort of reward to the plaintiff anyway, and if it was it often isn't worth what they had to go through to get it (see above).

    mcdermott on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcdermott wrote:
    jclast wrote:
    I understand that the damages are punishing Amtrak, but in so doing the kids are being rewarded for their stupidity.

    You say this as though, seeing the award, other kids are going to run out to maim themselves and possibly ruin/end their lives in order to get a piece of this sweet punitive pie. To be honest, given the choice of going through what these kids went through for $24 million, I'd probably pass...money isn't everything.

    Yes, but we're talking about stupid people, specifically, stupid kids.. Also, there are parents out there that would trick kids into doing stupid things.

    Fencingsax on
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against Russian warships) Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    jclast wrote:
    Zsetrek wrote:
    jclast wrote:
    a $24 million reward

    It's not a reward for the kids, it's a punishment against Amtrak. It also happens to be one of the few ways, aside from legislation, that we can punish companies who do negligent things.

    Yes, it's not an ideal scenario, but it's the only one we currently have, and it gets the job done.

    And that means I can't think it's a shitty system why? Yeah, the $24 million is a punishment to Amtrak, but it also serves as a reward for those kids. They (assuming they don't blow it all) probably never have to work again. That sounds an awul lot like a reward for being idiots to me.

    Whoever proposed the punitive damages be donated charity had the right idea. That way, the kids aren't being rewarded, a charity is getting helped, and the defendant is still being punished monetarily.
    Jesus Christ you're an idiot. Read the fucking Op.
    I'm sorry that the kids got hurt, but the only time the injured party ought to be compensated, in my opinion, above and beyond medical costs is when they had a legitimate reason to be where they were. "I wanted to check out the view from this sweet train car that I have no business playing on" is not a legitimate reason. "My boss told me to go work there" is a legitimate reason. "I was walking on the sidewalk" is a legitimate reason. "I was trespassing" is not.
    Great, so once again, we're back to "My backyard makes a great shortcut, but man, I hate fucking kids walking across it, so thank goodness for extra low-trigger-weight landmines. So get off my fucking lawn, or don't come dragging your bleeding stumps to me, whining, "Oh god, my legs, where are my legs!"

    A lifetime of not touching power lines has instilled in me the caution not to touch them. Hearing the old urban legend has instilled in me the caution not to piss on one. However, nothing previous in my experince ever told me that simply standing within six feet of one can be just as dangerous. Tresspassing and climbing on the train renders some of the responsibility onto the kids (let me know when you've finally actually read the OP) but it doesn't relieve AMTRAK of all responsibility, especially for the stuff that average people might not know, like the fact their mere presence might turn them into lightning rods.
    *edit*
    I've got a better one. Instead of landmines, I install a 12,000 volt catenary electrical wire (at head height, 1.8 meters, because I know someone is going to be that pedantic), because hey, maybe I want to park a really small train there someday, and so just in case, I keep that sucker charged up. Now, it's private property, so kids know walking through it is wrong, and holy fuck! it's a _wire_! (Get in the car!), so I'm now absolved of any liability should it fry some kid? Because that's the arguement you're making.

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • jclastjclast Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Long claim that I haven't read the OP after already making a fool of myself that very way once, in this exact thread.

    What part didn't I read? They did something stupid that many other people probably would have done. "Everybody else would do it!" doesn't make it less stupid, but it is a good reason to put up signs.

    Punitive damages alone, per defendant are $5.75 million. That's a lot of money. Enough, in fact, that if they didn't go blow it all on crap, they could, conceivable, never work again.

    That's what I have a problem with. Not Amtrak's being made to pay their medical bills, not their being made to pay for earnings that couldn't be made due to hospital stay.

    I also don't think that just because it's my yard I ought to be absolved of responsiblity when something happens on it. What I ought to absolved of is paying punitive damages to the defendant. Punitive means to punish. Take my money and burn it, give it to charity, or feed it into a governmental system like welfare, but don't give it to the defendant's because then we're not only punishing me for having a shitty yard but we're rewarding them for running through private property and getting hurt.

    I'm all for the legal system discouraging unsafe areas, regardless or whether they are private property, but it shouldn't be rewarding idiocy and lawbreaking with the same gesture. If I hired the kids to cut my lawn and pull my weeds, I could understand punishimg me and having punitive damages going directly to them because I caused them to be in that situation. When they trespassed, they came in uninvited. Keep in mind, in both scenarios I'm okay with paying for their hospital stay and lost earning due to hospital stay. It's the extra money intended to punish me that lines their pockets that I don't like when I was in no way responsible for their being in that situation.

    jclast on
    camo_sig2.png
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against Russian warships) Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    jclast wrote:
    Showing that having already made himself a fool like that once, jclast still hasn't fully read the OP
    What part didn't I read?
    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.

    Yeah, they sure are living the good life, and pissing away all that sweet, sweet loot.
    I don't like when I was in no way responsible for their being in that situation.
    By running that wire through your yard, and not putting up warning signs that just standing within two meters can get you electrocuted, it's your fault. What part of that, and 'disabled for life,' is too complicated for you to understand?

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • jclastjclast Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    BIG TEXT MAKES ME RIGHT

    Amtrak didn't make that guy climb that traincar. Paying his medical bills (including rehabilitation) should be enough.

    Amtrak doesn't owe him a life because he got hurt on their property. They didn't want him there, they didn't invite him there, and they certainly didn't make him go up there.

    There's got to be a line somewhere, and I think that punitive damages awarded to the plaintiff ought to be it.

    I understand that the guy was hurt. Badly. And is now disabled. That shouldn't mean that Amtrak has to supply him with millions of dollars. It means that they should have to pay his medical costs.

    You're free to disagree with me, and I sense that you will, but don't make me out to be some bastard that's laughing at a kid that got hurt. I'm not. I just don't think that punitive damages paid to the plaintiff are warranted.

    jclast on
    camo_sig2.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    jclast wrote:
    I understand that the guy was hurt. Badly. And is now disabled. That shouldn't mean that Amtrak has to supply him with millions of dollars. It means that they should have to pay his medical costs.

    You're free to disagree with me, and I sense that you will, but don't make me out to be some bastard that's laughing at a kid that got hurt. I'm not. I just don't think that punitive damages paid to the plaintiff are warranted.

    Amtrak is not supplying him/them with millions of dollars. Amtrack is being forced to give up millions of dollars because of their negligence. Where the money goes does not matter one bit to Amtrak.

    I suspect you're just jealous because not they're millionaires and you're (presumably) not. Guess what: they'd (at least the primary victim) probably trade places with you in a fucking heartbeat.

    mcdermott on
  • jclastjclast Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcdermott wrote:
    jclast wrote:
    I understand that the guy was hurt. Badly. And is now disabled. That shouldn't mean that Amtrak has to supply him with millions of dollars. It means that they should have to pay his medical costs.

    You're free to disagree with me, and I sense that you will, but don't make me out to be some bastard that's laughing at a kid that got hurt. I'm not. I just don't think that punitive damages paid to the plaintiff are warranted.

    Amtrak is not supplying him/them with millions of dollars. Amtrack is being forced to give up millions of dollars because of their negligence. Where the money goes does not matter one bit to Amtrak.

    I suspect you're just jealous because not they're millionaires and you're (presumably) not. Guess what: they'd (at least the primary victim) probably trade places with you in a fucking heartbeat.

    It's not jealousy. I just happen to think that people don't deserve to be paid for getting themselves hurt. If the money went to a charity Amtrak would be punished and it could do some good.

    Why not do two things worth doing (punish Amtrak's negligence and donate to charity) with one action instead of only one thing worth doing (only punishing Amtrak)?

    jclast on
    camo_sig2.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    jclast wrote:
    It's not jealousy. I just happen to think that people don't deserve to be paid for getting themselves hurt. If the money went to a charity Amtrak would be punished and it could do some good.

    Why not do two things worth doing (punish Amtrak's negligence and donate to charity) with one action instead of only one thing worth doing (only punishing Amtrak)?

    Because there are cases where the situation is such that the punitives should possibly go to the claimant (such as where no wrongdoing or mistake occurs on their part). In which case to sort this out you'd have to add a whole 'nother phase to the lawsuit in which the defendant makes their case as to whether or not they deserve the punitive damages. All this does is give lawyers more billable hours and add the risk that punitives won't go to a defendant when maybe they should.

    The money was taken from Amtrak, so the purpose of the punitives was accomplished. Whiney motherfuckers who wish they had 24 million dollars can just get over the fact that it went to the kids. Again, nobody is going to choose the life of "disfigured and disabled burn victim" to score some punitive loot, so I don't see any real damage to society here.

    mcdermott on
  • jclastjclast Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcdermott wrote:
    jclast wrote:
    It's not jealousy. I just happen to think that people don't deserve to be paid for getting themselves hurt. If the money went to a charity Amtrak would be punished and it could do some good.

    Why not do two things worth doing (punish Amtrak's negligence and donate to charity) with one action instead of only one thing worth doing (only punishing Amtrak)?

    Because there are cases where the situation is such that the punitives should possibly go to the claimant (such as where no wrongdoing or mistake occurs on their part). In which case to sort this out you'd have to add a whole 'nother phase to the lawsuit in which the defendant makes their case as to whether or not they deserve the punitive damages. All this does is give lawyers more billable hours and add the risk that punitives won't go to a defendant when maybe they should.

    The money was taken from Amtrak, so the purpose of the punitives was accomplished. Whiney motherfuckers who wish they had 24 million dollars can just get over the fact that it went to the kids. Again, nobody is going to choose the life of "disfigured and disabled burn victim" to score some punitive loot, so I don't see any real damage to society here.

    It would seem we're at an impasse. Not everyone that doesn't like huge punitive payouts is a greedy, whiny bastard. Nor do we all think that it would be sweet to get hurt and make a bajillion dollars. It is possible to genuinely think the system is broken (or at least could stand to be improved upon) instead of being bitter that you're not the one profitting from it.

    Can we just drop before it becomes nothing more than name-calling? We've both made our points, at it seems obvious that neither of us will sway the other.

    jclast on
    camo_sig2.png
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against Russian warships) Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I think what people are reacting to is your staggering lack of empathy.

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • jclastjclast Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I think what people are reacting to is your staggering lack of empathy.

    Tell me then. What is it that I'm "supposed" to feel?

    Here's where I'm at. I think it's warranted that Amtrak pay these guys's medical bills and rehabilitation costs. I'm also sorry that they got hurt.

    Is it wanting punitives to go to charity instead of people that took it upon themselves to get hurt what does it? If so, I'm sorry that I don't think they deserve extra money for getting themselves hurt. There's a difference between thinking punitive awards to plaintiffs is unneccessary and thinking punishment of the negligent is unneccessary. I believe the former. It seems that many of you think I believe the latter despite my repeated attempts to rectify the misconception.

    jclast on
    camo_sig2.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    jclast wrote:
    I think what people are reacting to is your staggering lack of empathy.

    Tell me then. What is it that I'm "supposed" to feel?

    Here's where I'm at. I think it's warranted that Amtrak pay these guys's medical bills and rehabilitation costs. I'm also sorry that they got hurt.

    Is it wanting punitives to go to charity instead of people that took it upon themselves to get hurt what does it? If so, I'm sorry that I don't think they deserve extra money for getting themselves hurt. There's a difference between thinking punitive awards to plaintiffs is unneccessary and thinking punishment of the negligent is unneccessary. I believe the former. It seems that many of you think I believe the latter despite my repeated attempts to rectify the misconception.

    Personally I think you have a lack of empathy because of your repeated use of the word "reward" in this context. If I your car is lost, and you are presented with a check for its full value, that's not a reward...it's compensation. So, while the purpose of the punitives is to punish the negligent (in this case, Amtrak), I don't think this amount of money (or really, any amount of money) would be considered a reward for living the life of a disfigured and disabled burn victim. The kid could be awarded a billion dollars in punitives and still not live a normal life. You're acting as though as long as his medical bills and rehab are paid for he should be just fine. It doesn't always work that way.

    As far as them being responsible for their own injury, I think you're failing to understand both the concept of "attractive nuisance" mentioned earlier, as well as the concept of negligence. Is trespassing illegal? Sure, and take the fines out of their award. Is a trainyard dangerous? Sure, and I'm willing to bet that they looked both ways before crossing any tracks, and were super-extra careful climbing the ladder to get to the top of the train car. Amtrak had created an unforseeable danger with this power line, and that is both why these kids were injured, and why Amtrak was punished. You yourself at least seem to agree that negligence was involved (you are only concerned with who gets the money, based on your statements).

    I just wish you could realize that the amounts of money being awarded here (this case, McDonald's case, some others) are not "rewards." They aren't really even compensation. At least Yar is arguing that companies aren't even being negligent, and thus the punitives should never be assessed against them. That's not a lack of empathy, that's just a disagreement on liability. You seem to think that somebody who has been disfigured and disabled is going to be jumping for joy at getting a big fat check. They're probably not. Because all the money in the world isn't going to keep this from changing your life dramatically, and not for the better.

    Again, I think very few people would choose to have this happen to them, not even for 24 million dollars. It isn't a reward.

    mcdermott on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Yes, but should Amtrak have to forsee people trespassing on their property? Not that I don't think that they shouldn't be punished, it simply seems somewhat excessive.

    Fencingsax on
  • jclastjclast Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcdermott wrote:
    jclast wrote:
    I think what people are reacting to is your staggering lack of empathy.

    Tell me then. What is it that I'm "supposed" to feel?

    Here's where I'm at. I think it's warranted that Amtrak pay these guys's medical bills and rehabilitation costs. I'm also sorry that they got hurt.

    Is it wanting punitives to go to charity instead of people that took it upon themselves to get hurt what does it? If so, I'm sorry that I don't think they deserve extra money for getting themselves hurt. There's a difference between thinking punitive awards to plaintiffs is unneccessary and thinking punishment of the negligent is unneccessary. I believe the former. It seems that many of you think I believe the latter despite my repeated attempts to rectify the misconception.

    Personally I think you have a lack of empathy because of your repeated use of the word "reward" in this context. If I your car is lost, and you are presented with a check for its full value, that's not a reward...it's compensation. So, while the purpose of the punitives is to punish the negligent (in this case, Amtrak), I don't think this amount of money (or really, any amount of money) would be considered a reward for living the life of a disfigured and disabled burn victim. The kid could be awarded a billion dollars in punitives and still not live a normal life. You're acting as though as long as his medical bills and rehab are paid for he should be just fine. It doesn't always work that way.

    As far as them being responsible for their own injury, I think you're failing to understand both the concept of "attractive nuisance" mentioned earlier, as well as the concept of negligence. Is trespassing illegal? Sure, and take the fines out of their award. Is a trainyard dangerous? Sure, and I'm willing to bet that they looked both ways before crossing any tracks, and were super-extra careful climbing the ladder to get to the top of the train car. Amtrak had created an unforseeable danger with this power line, and that is both why these kids were injured, and why Amtrak was punished. You yourself at least seem to agree that negligence was involved (you are only concerned with who gets the money, based on your statements).

    I just wish you could realize that the amounts of money being awarded here (this case, McDonald's case, some others) are not "rewards." They aren't really even compensation. At least Yar is arguing that companies aren't even being negligent, and thus the punitives should never be assessed against them. That's not a lack of empathy, that's just a disagreement on liability. You seem to think that somebody who has been disfigured and disabled is going to be jumping for joy at getting a big fat check. They're probably not. Because all the money in the world isn't going to keep this from changing your life dramatically, and not for the better.

    Again, I think very few people would choose to have this happen to them, not even for 24 million dollars. It isn't a reward.

    I've been using the word reward because I honestly don't know what else to call it. If you know of a better word, please let me know.

    I understand that the guys that got hurt wouldn't agree if some guy said "Hey kids, go get massively electrocuted on the train car and I'll give you tons of cash." Nobody is going to choose disfigurement and disability for money (well, nobody I can think of at any rate).

    Yes, Amtrak was at fault for leaving the lines on when they couldn't be in use, butthe kids were also at fault for climbing equipment that doesn't belong to them.

    If I go do something remarkably stupid that could have resulted in injury but instead results in a completely different, unforseen to me, injury, that doesn't completely absolve me of responsibility for my actions. I know that the traincar was an attractive nuisance and that Amtrak's leaving lines powered was negligent, but nobody made those kids climb up there. Some portion of the responsibility must rest with them. After all, if they hadn't climbed the traincar, they wouldn't have gotten hurt.

    I think Amtrak paying for medical bills and the kids getting no punitive settlement is just about the right mix of corporate responsibility and personal responsibility.

    I know that their lives will never be all hunky-dory again. And it's partly their fault. They chose to go up on that train car. If no amount of money is going to remedy it, and I've repeatedly said that I am sorry they got hurt, how is it that I'm a bastard?

    jclast on
    camo_sig2.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Fencingsax wrote:
    Yes, but should Amtrak have to forsee people trespassing on their property? Not that I don't think that they shouldn't be punished, it simply seems somewhat excessive.

    Though I'll probably catch a lot of flak for saying this, yes they should. If their security is such that a couple teenagers could waltz right in, I'd say they should have some obligation to make sure their property is safe.

    Putting a chain-link fence around your backyard does not suddenly mean you don't pose a public nuisance by placing a minefield in it (even if mines were legal). You need to either better secure your property, or remove any unforseen (by trespassers) and lethal dangers that are posed there. Because a couple kids looking for a shortcut to school don't deserve to have their legs blown off.

    mcdermott on
  • jclastjclast Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Fencingsax wrote:
    Yes, but should Amtrak have to forsee people trespassing on their property? Not that I don't think that they shouldn't be punished, it simply seems somewhat excessive.

    If there's no fence around it? Yeah, it's reasonable to assume that people will enter and exit your property that you didn't invite.

    If they put up a fence, however, that'd be another story, in my opinion. Then trespassers aren't just walking through, they had to scale a fence to get in there.

    jclast on
    camo_sig2.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    jclast wrote:
    I've been using the word reward because I honestly don't know what else to call it. If you know of a better word, please let me know.

    I understand that the guys that got hurt wouldn't agree if some guy said "Hey kids, go get massively electrocuted on the train car and I'll give you tons of cash." Nobody is going to choose disfigurement and disability for money (well, nobody I can think of at any rate).

    Yes, Amtrak was at fault for leaving the lines on when they couldn't be in use, but the kids were also at fault for climbing equipment that doesn't belong to them.

    If I go do something remarkably stupid that could have resulted in injury but instead results in a completely different, unforseen to me, injury, that doesn't completely absolve me of responsibility for my actions. I know that the traincar was an attractive nuisance and that Amtrak's leaving lines powered was negligent, but nobody made those kids climb up there. Some portion of the responsibility must rest with them. After all, if they hadn't climbed the traincar, they wouldn't have gotten hurt.

    If they had fallen off the car and broken their necks, I'd say it's iffy whether or not Amtrak was even negligent and should cover medical expenses. Just putting that out there.
    I think Amtrak paying for medical bills and the kids getting no punitive settlement is just about the right mix of corporate responsibility and personal responsibility.

    I know that their lives will never be all hunky-dory again. And it's partly their fault. They chose to go up on that train car. If no amount of money is going to remedy it, and I've repeatedly said that I am sorry they got hurt, how is it that I'm a bastard?

    You know what I think is a fair mix of coorporate and personal responsibility here? Amtrak loses a bunch of money, because they were negligent. Since that amount of money is still not really going to truly compensate the victims (loose use of the word, as yes they were trespassing), it might as well go to them. And the pain and suffering of living the life of a disfigured and disabled burn victim, that really won't go away no matter how many zeroes you have at the end of your bank account...well, that's on them/him. That is where their personal responsibility comes in.

    mcdermott on
  • RoanthRoanth Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I think that the legal issues of the case have been pretty well covered. On an interesting side note...

    Since Amtrak is a massive money loser and funded by the federal government, the good taxpayers of our country are going to foot the legal bill (depending on what type of insurance coverage Amtrak has I guess). If Amtrak were a public entity (instead of its current quasi-private existence) would the two teens still have been able to sue the Company for these types of damages? I apologize for my lack of legal knowledge but I thought there were certain restrictions in suing government entities in some situations.

    Roanth on
Sign In or Register to comment.