A Travesty of Justice, but What Else is New?
- Thread starter Euphod
- Start date
illinoiscentral
SARM Volunteer
Bet you won't say that if someone sues you and you win your case thanks to none other than, Lawyer.
I agree that the story as written sounds preposterous. At the risk of being lynched, however, I would say that it is hard to fully appreciate a case that probably took two weeks or more to try on the basis of a blurb unless you were there with the jury and heard it all, including the judge's instructions.
Bernie
Bernie
After reading stories like that, I have to wonder why I wake up in the mornings. Oh yeah, I know why! Get up, go to work to pay taxes so I can say I funded this frivolous law suit while this moron gets rich and I have to live under a train trestle because I pay to many taxes!!!!
cascaderailroad
New member
Nah...All your taxes go to pay all the government employees perks, and congressmen salaries, yaghts, planes, vacations, cruises, banquets, and to fund the Bills that they (sneak)(stuff) insert into the budget, and government bailout stimulus plan, for their own kickbacks. And the average person pays 0.17 cents per week into State Unimployment Compensation from their paycheck, and complains about that miniscule amount. And after the settlement is appealed and reduced to $750,000 the drunk man will be without a leg for the rest of his life in a wheelchair. And he won't see a penny of the money untill all the appeals are done, maybe 5 years. What if it was YOU ? Maybe he was a respectable taxpayer too, and just got intoxicated at a party, and messed up big time. Could happen to anyone if your careless for one time. Even you, or a close friend, or relative.
Last edited:
honestly, this story does not surprise me. sad the guy lost his leg, even worse was the fact he thought he could sue and the ultimate slap was winning. almost as bad as someone breaking into your house, you severly hurt them, them suing for pain and suffering, and winning.
cascaderailroad
New member
Quote: "almost as bad as someone breaking into your house, you severly hurt them, them suing for pain and suffering, and winning".
FYI: Under Pa law, someone intruding into your house, does not neccesarily justify you commiting homicide, or attempted homicide, or assault and battery on the intruder, especially if the intruder has no weapon, you are required to prove that you could not flee from the intruder, from your own home, from another exit, to call for 911.
FYI: Under Pa law, someone intruding into your house, does not neccesarily justify you commiting homicide, or attempted homicide, or assault and battery on the intruder, especially if the intruder has no weapon, you are required to prove that you could not flee from the intruder, from your own home, from another exit, to call for 911.
Last edited:
He may have been a respectable taxpayer, but that doesn't make the subway system responsible for his lack of judgement and irresponsibility. It's time that people take personal responsibility for themselves and their actions.
cascaderailroad
New member
That would be a courtroom's judges ruling for a decision...not me, nor you, nor anyone elses public opinion and personal feelings...we are not the law, judge, jury, or executioner...we are the peanut gallery. Only: Law decides the outcome. It also says that the Driver had time to stop, and mistook the object on the tracks to be an inert object. Evidentally the Driver made the decision to procede, when he saw the object, and did not hit the brakes, until it was too late. Interesting case ! What if it were you or me...Hmmmmm ?
Last edited:
Gandalf0444
FVRR member
Certainly shows how stupid the laws in this country are.... Just like with fights in schools. If you get jumped by a kid your not allowed to fight back if you don't want to get suspended etc. Because they expect you to run away from them...Unless your cornered.Even then it is still shady... But if someone barges into your home unannounced you should have the right to do whatever it takes short of killing them(unless they have a weapon,gun,knife etc) If they don't have one you should still be able to at least beat the hell out of them with anything from your own fists,to a none deadly weapon such as a laundry basket to throw at him/her. I mean why should you have to flee from YOUR house when someone is trying to break into it and steal stuff,hurt you or others living there.
I think there is more to this story than what the media has stated. The fact that the driver saw the object on the tracks and didn't bother to stop is what I think threw the case to the drunkard, and not in favor of MetroNorth. If the driver had attempted to stop, i.e. put the train into emergency, and then slid over his leg, then it would be a different story.
So in my opinion, this was justified even though the guy was drunk and was on the tracks. The train driver was negligent in not stopping or attempting to stop when he saw the object on the tracks.
I'm not a lawyer; I'm just using some critical thinking on this. My first gut reaction was okay the guy deserved it, but then the devil was in the details as they say, and this changed my point of view completely. I was going to post something last nigh, in fact I saw Ed's post immediately as he posted it, but I got side-tracked on CNN's website after I read the article. There were tornado warnings in GA, and that caught my attention.
John
So in my opinion, this was justified even though the guy was drunk and was on the tracks. The train driver was negligent in not stopping or attempting to stop when he saw the object on the tracks.
I'm not a lawyer; I'm just using some critical thinking on this. My first gut reaction was okay the guy deserved it, but then the devil was in the details as they say, and this changed my point of view completely. I was going to post something last nigh, in fact I saw Ed's post immediately as he posted it, but I got side-tracked on CNN's website after I read the article. There were tornado warnings in GA, and that caught my attention.
John
ex-railwayman
New member
Obviously a lot of hockey fans on the jury......:hehe:
ex. :wave:
ex. :wave:
Not trying to start an argument here (well perhaps a friendly one, lol) but doesn't that assume by throwing on the brakes he had a chance to stop in time? A commuter train might be able to stop quicker but I doubt it would have been able to completely stop in time. A 100 car freight train at 60 mph takes 1 to 2 miles to stop (weather your car is on the tracks or not). It doesn't make a rats butt worth of difference that the brakes were applied or not. Whatever is on the tracks is going to get hit. It could never stop in time so weatherthe brakes are applied or not is meaningless when it comes to avoiding the object on the tracks. Its this kind of nitpicking by lawyers that has made our legal system such a massive joke. Finally - isn't being on the tracks tresspassing? It is down here.
Ben
Ben
WileeCoyote
Eatibus Almost Anythingus
You know what I can't help but find a bit weird? This guy has had more than two years to file this lawsuit, what took him so long? He couldn't have been drunk off his arse the entire time.
Lawyers, sheesh. Drunks on ROW, sheesh. This going in a completely different direction than it would have a few decades ago, SHEESH!
WileeCoyote
Lawyers, sheesh. Drunks on ROW, sheesh. This going in a completely different direction than it would have a few decades ago, SHEESH!
WileeCoyote
Last edited:
illinoiscentral
SARM Volunteer
Serves him right! Freakin' drunk. Maybe he should have thought when he was in the bar, "Maybe I shouldn't drink this many." Idiot.
Trains & Drunks don't mix.
You Booz it, you loose it!
Trains & Drunks don't mix.
You Booz it, you loose it!
Now let me get this straight, the train driver admitted he had time to stop, and he would know, but did not.
Now bring in the drunk, its his fault because he fell onto the tracks, so he deserved to be hit, GIVE ME A BREAK, that would mean every drunk is fair game for every car driver.
Now lets substitute a 3 year old for the drunk, he/she runs away from mum, its a game, then falls onto the tracks, the driver could stop but doesn't, because its a toddler you all would be after the driver to be shot.
To those that think the drunk deserved it, if you ever get hit by a car by walking out onto the road while your mind is else where, and most of us have done that, I hope you realise that you deserved to be hit, even if the driver could of stopped but didn't.
And if you read the article properly you would of seen that his payout was reduced because it was found that he was 33% in the wrong.
Cheers David
Now bring in the drunk, its his fault because he fell onto the tracks, so he deserved to be hit, GIVE ME A BREAK, that would mean every drunk is fair game for every car driver.
Now lets substitute a 3 year old for the drunk, he/she runs away from mum, its a game, then falls onto the tracks, the driver could stop but doesn't, because its a toddler you all would be after the driver to be shot.
To those that think the drunk deserved it, if you ever get hit by a car by walking out onto the road while your mind is else where, and most of us have done that, I hope you realise that you deserved to be hit, even if the driver could of stopped but didn't.
And if you read the article properly you would of seen that his payout was reduced because it was found that he was 33% in the wrong.
Cheers David