Another frivolous lawsuit by train-maimed kid
Ich bin Andreas
Teen hit by train while asleep on tracks sues railroad
Leila W. Knox
The Tribune
The 15-year-old Grover Beach boy who lost his legs and an arm in a train
accident in September said in a lawsuit that the conductor and engineer
breached their duty by not sounding the trains horn or bell as soon as
they saw the teen lying on the tracks. The 15-year-old Grover Beach boy
who lost his legs and an arm in a train accident in September said in a
lawsuit that the conductor and engineer breached their duty by not
sounding the trains horn or bell as soon as they saw the teen lying on the
tracks.
Cameron Clapp of Grover Beach filed a lawsuit in San Luis Obispo Superior
Court last week against Union Pacific Railroad and the trains conductor
and engineer.
Clapp lost his legs and right arm early on the morning of Sept. 15 after
he fell asleep on Union Pacific train tracks near his home on Front Street
in Grover Beach. A Union Pacific freight train ran over the boy, severing
both of his legs near the knee and his right arm at the shoulder.
According to a Grover Beach police report, Clapps blood alcohol level
shortly after the accident was 0.229 nearly three times the legal limit
for an adult operating a motor vehicle.
The suit states that Edward J. Faller, the trains conductor, and Edward C.
Steman, the engineer, should have sounded the horn or bell when they saw
the boy lying across the tracks near the 600 block of Front Street in
Grover Beach.
If you see something lying across the tracks and you have to activate the
emergency brake system, then why would you not, as you are bearing down on
this kid on the tracks, also not sound your horn, said Jim Murphy, Clapps
attorney. These horns are enormously powerful and can literally wake the
dead.
The suit states the train was about 640 feet south of Clapp when Steman
and Faller saw the boy on the tracks. According to Grover Beach police,
the engineer and conductor did not sound the horn because they were
focused on activating the trains emergency brakes. Faller told police they
did not see the boys body until Clapp was approximately 100 feet north of
the train.
Murphy acknowledges that Clapp had been drinking before he passed out on
the tracks but said that does not excuse Union Pacific from liability.
Its really not a question of excusing Cameron from any responsibility that
he might have for his own conduct but about making other people
responsible for their misconduct, Murphy said.
Clapp is suing for damages related to hospital costs, medical expenses,
loss of earning capacity and property damage. The suit states unspecified
damages will be determined by either a judge or jury.
send any email to andreas...@yahoo.com
Adam H. Kerman
>Teen hit by train while asleep on tracks sues railroad
>Leila W. Knox
>The Tribune
>The 15-year-old Grover Beach boy who lost his legs and an arm in a train
>accident in September said in a lawsuit that the conductor and engineer
>breached their duty by not sounding the trains horn or bell as soon as
>they saw the teen lying on the tracks. The 15-year-old Grover Beach boy
>who lost his legs and an arm in a train accident in September said in a
>lawsuit that the conductor and engineer breached their duty by not
>sounding the trains horn or bell as soon as they saw the teen lying on the
>tracks. . . .
>According to a Grover Beach police report, Clapps blood alcohol level
>shortly after the accident was 0.229 nearly three times the legal limit
>for an adult operating a motor vehicle.
You know, that high a blood-alchohol ratio in a 15 year old is starting to
approach fatally poisonous levels, especially if his body is slight.
gimm...@doubleclick.com
[snip]
> You know, that high a blood-alchohol ratio in a 15 year old is starting to
> approach fatally poisonous levels, especially if his body is slight.
Not to mention that, had the horn been sounded, it probably would not have
done much good, as judgement would have been appropriately impaired (hell,
it was impaired already by the fact that the guy passed out on actively used
tracks) and the reaction would not have been as quick (if at all) as the
plaintiff seems to claim it would be.
--
Segmentation fault
aidrian.bridgeman-sutton
dead. <<
*Literally* wake the dead? So that's what the last trump will sound like.
Aidrian
Justa Lurker
<gl...@mtolympus.ari.net> quoted:
| "Its really not a question of excusing Cameron from any
| responsibility that he might have for his own conduct but
| about making other people responsible for their misconduct,
| Murphy said."
This Murphy's Law?
'Anything that can go wrong is someone else's responsibility.'
| "Clapp is suing for damages related to hospital costs, medical
| expenses, loss of earning capacity and property damage. The
| suit states unspecified damages will be determined by either
| a judge or jury."
I suppose he is suing the person who gave him the booze?
The alcohol companies for glamorizing their product to kids?
The school system for not teaching him where to sleep it off?
His parents for not paying attention to their son's actions?
The police department for not finding and arresting him before
he was hit by the train? Silly.
JL
Adam H. Kerman
>I suppose he is suing the person who gave him the booze?
Dram Shop laws are likely on the books.
>The alcohol companies for glamorizing their product to kids?
>The school system for not teaching him where to sleep it off?
>His parents for not paying attention to their son's actions?
>The police department for not finding and arresting him before
>he was hit by the train? Silly.
Hey! Don't give his PI attorney ideas.
Steve Kraus
> *Literally* wake the dead?
Well, that's two reasons for the judge to toss this. Ridiculous claim
and the attorney is an idiot.
>So that's what the last trump will sound like.
Please refer to "The Horn Blows at Midnight" starring Jack Benny.
Simm Webb
>It was Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:12:47 -0500, and Ich bin Andreas
>
>I suppose he is suing the person who gave him the booze?
>The alcohol companies for glamorizing their product to kids?
>The school system for not teaching him where to sleep it off?
>His parents for not paying attention to their son's actions?
>The police department for not finding and arresting him before
>he was hit by the train? Silly.
>
>JL
I used to own a tavern. Strangely enough, in Ohio, a bar tender or license
holder is considered liable for any stupid mistakes which happen to a drunk
after drinking in my bar. It is a catch 22 situation.
Justice is not blind
It's premeditated
David Mummery
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
news:o7fS7.217783$My2.12...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
Forgive me, but does PI stand for "Pig Ignorant?"
--
David Mummery, Colchester, UK
Adam H. Kerman
>I used to own a tavern. Strangely enough, in Ohio, a bar tender or license
>holder is considered liable for any stupid mistakes which happen to a drunk
>after drinking in my bar. It is a catch 22 situation.
No, it isn't. Were you not aware of the intoxicating effects of alchohol before
you started to sell it? The law expects you to stop selling drinks to folks
before they get shit faced. There's no Catch-22. You're not forced to continue
selling drinks to drunks.
David Wire
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
The problem arises when they do not appear drunk, but infact are. After all, you
don't know what they may have had to drink before they came in and at the current
legal limits for DUI most people would not appear drunk.
For that matter, what happens when after say three drinks you say "That's enough
buddy!" and they therefore immediately leave and out on the street to cause an
accident. You can stop serving them, but you can't keep them from driving. It may
be the law, but it makes no common sense. The responsibility should remain with the
drinker.
Required railroad content:
Did anyone get the story on the fright train vs truck (car?) that happened in
Fullerton, Calif. yesterday?
Dave.
James Robinson
>
> Did anyone get the story on the fright train vs truck (car?) that happened in
> Fullerton, Calif. yesterday?
The newspaper suggested that the driver was fleeing from an unrelated
hit-and-run, and tried to drive around the lowered crossing barriers.
They also said that the police knew nothing of another accident at the
time the story was written.
Justa Lurker
| I used to own a tavern. Strangely enough, in Ohio, a bar
| tender or license holder is considered liable for any
| stupid mistakes which happen to a drunk after drinking
| in my bar. It is a catch 22 situation.
Oh well, there are other professions and businesses.
Each type of business carries it's own risk. That's yours.
David Wire <dw...@realtyaccounting.com> wrote:
| For that matter, what happens when after say three drinks
| you say "That's enough buddy!" and they therefore immediately
| leave and out on the street to cause an accident. You can
| stop serving them, but you can't keep them from driving.
Perhaps arrest powers should be granted. Or serving places
should have other entertainment than the 4th through 40th drink.
| It may be the law, but it makes no common sense. The
| responsibility should remain with the drinker.
The drinkers have proven irresponsible. Plus, getting back to
the case at hand, this is a 15yr old who was at 0.229 - well
over where a 15yr old should be. Providing him should be a
felony.
He could just as easily stepped in front of a car or fallen
asleep on a road where a swerving vehicle could kill others.
(Assuming that he didn't drive yet. In that case, he could
wipe out others on his own.)
JL
DaveW
Justa Lurker wrote:
>
>
>Perhaps arrest powers should be granted. Or serving places
>should have other entertainment than the 4th through 40th drink.
>
Ah, but it is not illegal in most places to simply be drunk, as long as
you're not out on the streets. Be that as it may, under current laws,
lots of folks would be legally drunk after two drinks in an hour. (No,
I'm not advocating a change to the .08% law.) Just making the point
that patrons in a bar can easily be legally drunk without observable signs.
>
>The drinkers have proven irresponsible. Plus, getting back to
>the case at hand, this is a 15yr old who was at 0.229 - well
>over where a 15yr old should be. Providing him should be a
>felony.
>
As far as I know, it is illegal though not a felony, to sell liquor to a
minor. It is also illegal to steal it.
>
>He could just as easily stepped in front of a car or fallen
>asleep on a road where a swerving vehicle could kill others.
>(Assuming that he didn't drive yet. In that case, he could
>wipe out others on his own.)
>
>JL
>
True. At that level, I'm suprised he didn't simply trip and fall face
first onto a sidewalk somewhere and die of head trauma. The problem
with this kid is most likely ignorant or ineffectual parents.
Dave.
Justa Lurker
<sps...@earthlink.net> wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
|> Perhaps arrest powers should be granted. Or serving places
|> should have other entertainment than the 4th through 40th drink.
|
| Ah, but it is not illegal in most places to simply be drunk,
| as long as you're not out on the streets.
Correct. Public intoxication as well as drunk driving are illegal.
The solution: Don't let the souced out of the door.
| Just making the point that patrons in a bar can easily be
| legally drunk without observable signs.
There is no requirement for an officer of the law to arrest
a person he has witnessed committing a crime. I would place
no such requirement when granting arrest powers to bars. But
just as the police officer could be held responsible if he
did not arrest someone (depending on the crime), the bar
owner would remain responsible if the ones he let get away
cause a problem. The only change from today's law would be
to emphasize the authority to place someone under arrest.
(We all have the authority to make citizen's arrest already.)
| At that level, I'm suprised he didn't simply trip and fall
| face first onto a sidewalk somewhere and die of head trauma.
They would sue the city for having sidewalks - or paving the
roads if he fell on one of those. Every inch of ground should
be padded at taxpayer's expense so that 15yr olds can drink
illegally without getting hurt. (Oops, I've been reading from
the lawyer's notes again.)
| The problem with this kid is most likely ignorant or
| ineffectual parents.
Yep. And their penalty is their son.
JL
WooF
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, David Mummery wrote:
> " Hey! Don't give his PI attorney ideas."
>
> Forgive me, but does PI stand for "Pig Ignorant?"
No, but it certainly should.
George Scithers of owls...@netaxs.com
(Personal Injury is what was meant)
WooF
A kid sneaked into a mid-train cab on a Philadelphia subway
train, opened the window, and stuck his head out. His parents,
having settled with the operating agency for a healthy sum, are
now suing the company that built the train and the company that
built the door lock.
George Scithers of owls...@netaxs.com
WooF
contractor's technical representative could hook it {the
electronic equipment] up wrong, he would.
Murphy later expanded on this: the way to prevent accidents is to
make it impossible (or at least very difficult) to hook things
together wrong.
An example of this principle: it's not easy to plug a home stereo
audio cable into a home power outlet.
George Scithers of owls...@netaxs.com
*Murphy was a real person, by the way.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Ich bin Andreas schrieb:
> Clapp lost his legs and right arm early on the morning of Sept. 15 after
> he fell asleep on Union Pacific train tracks near his home on Front Street
> in Grover Beach. A Union Pacific freight train ran over the boy, severing
> both of his legs near the knee and his right arm at the shoulder.
>
> According to a Grover Beach police report, Clapps blood alcohol level
> shortly after the accident was 0.229 nearly three times the legal limit
> for an adult operating a motor vehicle.
Remembering my own heavy alcohol abuse at age 12 - 15, I simply do not take
that story of falling asleep on the tracks. Sounds like a failed suicide
attempt while drunken.
hajo
--
Christmas:
"A day set apart and consecrated to gluttony, drunkenness, maudlin
sentiment, gift-taking, public dulness and domestic misbehavior.
Ambrose Bierce
Tim Kynerd
Zierke wrote:
>
> Ich bin Andreas schrieb:
>
>> Clapp lost his legs and right arm early on the morning of Sept. 15 after
>> he fell asleep on Union Pacific train tracks near his home on Front Street
>> in Grover Beach. A Union Pacific freight train ran over the boy, severing
>> both of his legs near the knee and his right arm at the shoulder.
>>
>> According to a Grover Beach police report, Clapps blood alcohol level
>> shortly after the accident was 0.229 nearly three times the legal limit
>> for an adult operating a motor vehicle.
>
>
> Remembering my own heavy alcohol abuse at age 12 - 15, I simply do not take
> that story of falling asleep on the tracks. Sounds like a failed suicide
> attempt while drunken.
I can buy that.
One of my colleagues on Lidingöbanan, here in Stockholm, was shocked early
one morning last year when he took out the first northbound train of the
day. He ran the train out to Gåshaga, reversed, and was running southbound
when he saw someone lying on the tracks. The guy (not the driver :-) ) had
placed his neck on one of the rails, as if to get his head chopped off.
Stefan was able to stop about five meters from him.
Since the guy wasn't there when Stefan was running northbound, he had to
have done this more or less deliberately. When Stefan got off the train to
chew him out, it turned out to be (1) a guy who was drunk, and (2) someone
Stefan knew personally.
Not fun.
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden t...@tram.nu
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 8:45
Sunset in Stockholm today: 14:41
My rail transit photos at http://www.kynerd.nu
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Tim Kynerd schrieb:
> I can buy that.
> Since the guy wasn't there when Stefan was running northbound, he had to
> have done this more or less deliberately. When Stefan got off the train to
> chew him out, it turned out to be (1) a guy who was drunk, and (2) someone
> Stefan knew personally.
So what?
Even with heavy alcohol abuse, you still know that you are in harms way.
The decisive question is, wether you care about it. Happy people might have
accidents in that high-risk condition, but won't kill themselves by
seeking conditions that do not allow survival.
You may believe me - in our school days, age 12 - 15, we had some
classmates hospitalized with up to 4 o/oo, cases where the doctors wouldn't
take any guarantee for survival (on a school-organized journey, this meant
big trouble for our teacher, though she really wasn't at fault...),
So there was some experience back then. We didn't have any accidents beside
the blood alcohol level in itself, and also managed to deliver those guys
to hospital even in ... substandard condition of ourselves.
Yes, the accident risk rises big time - I can believe that people step on
a third rail in that condition. I also can believe that people are overrun
by trains while crossing the track in that condition. This is "normal", in
line with the lower level of awareness and selfcontrol.
But somebody lying on the track means that he does not care. Maybe he was
unlucky with a girl, maybe there were other problems - sure he wouldn't
have committed suicide the next morning, but that's true for many other
suicide attempts as well, without any alcohol being involved.
That "I didn't know what I was doing" is simply a lie (though a popular
one). Without prior determination, people don't get suddenly aggressive, or
suicidal all of a sudden, or suddenly want sex ... that alcohol does not
give you any new thoughts or emotions, it takes away a certain amount of
control over your thoughts and emotions.
Therefore, what I'm able to believe, is something in a line of ... boy
walks home drunken and unhappy, decides that it is best to die, and puts
himself on the track. When no train has arrived after a while, boy gets
asleep. This story would be in line with my knowledge about "normal" human
behaviour.
> Not fun.
Sure not. BTW: I met one of my classmates last year, who didn't stop at age
15. Identifiable as a wreck even from 100 meters distance. Not fun,
especially because it makes you think about those narrow paths of
decisionmaking, that can and will rule a whole life.
It might not be considered fair that a single wrong decision, plus a little
bad luck, can ruin your whole life. That's why a judge might award some
railroad money to that guy.
It has nothing to do with responsibility, but is the US-style replacement
of a public healthcare system. As long as the costs of frivolous lawsuits
are considered to be lower than those for a public healthcare system, I
expect it to stay that way.
Erik Sandblom
/dev/null@.com den 15-12-01 06.27:
> Simm Webb <ed...@vanhuffel.com> wrote:
> | I used to own a tavern. Strangely enough, in Ohio, a bar
> | tender or license holder is considered liable for any
> | stupid mistakes which happen to a drunk after drinking
> | in my bar. It is a catch 22 situation.
>
> Oh well, there are other professions and businesses.
> Each type of business carries it's own risk. That's yours.
So two wrongs make a right?
Anyway, the US is a free country, and with freedom comes responsibility. If
someone gets drunk at a bar and then gets run over by a car, it is *not* the
bartender's fault. Common sense.
> | It may be the law, but it makes no common sense. The
> | responsibility should remain with the drinker.
>
> The drinkers have proven irresponsible.
Wimps. It's your own fault if you get drunk unless someone gets the alchohol
in you without you knowing it. It can't be blamed on someone else.
> Plus, getting back to
> the case at hand, this is a 15yr old who was at 0.229 - well
> over where a 15yr old should be. Providing him should be a
> felony.
He probably bought window-cleaning liquid at the gas store and drank that.
Is that the gas station's fault? No. The idiot misused both the liquid and
the tracks, and has himself to blame.
--
my site is EriksRailNews.com
for those who don't believe, no explanation is possible
for those who do, no explanation is necessary
Magnus Homann
> But somebody lying on the track means that he does not care. Maybe he was
> unlucky with a girl, maybe there were other problems - sure he wouldn't
> have committed suicide the next morning, but that's true for many other
> suicide attempts as well, without any alcohol being involved.
I'm not so sure. People I know have decided to lie down in the middle
of the road under the influence.
On the other hand, we managed to get them up on their feet rather
quickly, and there was never any danger.
It might be a stretc frmo this to do it by yourself, an then go to sleep...
Homann
--
Magnus Homann, M.Sc. CS & E
d0a...@dtek.chalmers.se
Erik Sandblom
d0a...@mis.dtek.chalmers.se den 17-12-01 19.37:
> Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usen...@Zierke.com> writes:
>
>> But somebody lying on the track means that he does not care. Maybe he was
>> unlucky with a girl, maybe there were other problems - sure he wouldn't
>> have committed suicide the next morning, but that's true for many other
>> suicide attempts as well, without any alcohol being involved.
>
> I'm not so sure. People I know have decided to lie down in the middle
> of the road under the influence.
I think most people understand that a car has a chance to stop, while a
train doesn't.
Tim Kynerd
Zierke wrote:
>
> Tim Kynerd schrieb:
>
>
>> I can buy that.
>
>> Since the guy wasn't there when Stefan was running northbound, he had to
>> have done this more or less deliberately. When Stefan got off the train to
>> chew him out, it turned out to be (1) a guy who was drunk, and (2) someone
>> Stefan knew personally.
>
>
> So what?
>
> Even with heavy alcohol abuse, you still know that you are in harms way.
Umm, I was *agreeing* with you. In the case I described, it appeared to be,
as you surmised about the case we were discussing previously, a suicide
attempt while drunk. I wrote above, "...he had to have done this more or
less deliberately."
How do you react when people *disagree* with you? Geez...
-rant snipped-
David Chui
:
: I think most people understand that a car has a chance to stop, while a
: train doesn't.
Really? I don't think so. Most people have little or no direct
experience with how trains operate. I'd expect that many people
assume that, while you can't stop a train on a dime, you'd be
able to stop one in a much shorter distance than it really takes.
- David
Erik Sandblom
dc...@cs.nyu.edu den 17-12-01 23.07:
Perhaps. Likely depends on whether they've been taught it in school, or
given it any thought/interest. Trains can lurch to a stop, maybe that makes
people think they can stop quickly.
Justa Lurker
<sand...@artech.removethis.andthis.se> wrote
|>| I used to own a tavern. Strangely enough, in Ohio, a bar
|>| tender or license holder is considered liable for any
|>| stupid mistakes which happen to a drunk after drinking
|>| in my bar. It is a catch 22 situation.
|>
|> Oh well, there are other professions and businesses.
|> Each type of business carries it's own risk. That's yours.
|
| So two wrongs make a right?
No. All professions carry certain risks. That is the risk
of owning a bar and serving alcohol.
| Anyway, the US is a free country, and with freedom comes
| responsibility. If someone gets drunk at a bar and then
| gets run over by a car, it is *not* the bartender's fault.
| Common sense.
The law would disagree with your common sense.
|>| It may be the law, but it makes no common sense. The
|>| responsibility should remain with the drinker.
|>
|> The drinkers have proven irresponsible.
|
| Wimps. It's your own fault if you get drunk unless
| someone gets the alchohol in you without you knowing
| it. It can't be blamed on someone else.
The laws disagree with you.
|> Plus, getting back to the case at hand, this is a 15yr
|> old who was at 0.229 - well over where a 15yr old should
|> be. Providing him should be a felony.
|
| He probably bought window-cleaning liquid at the gas store
| and drank that. Is that the gas station's fault? No. The
| idiot misused both the liquid and the tracks, and has
| himself to blame.
That is a groundless statement. There is no evidence that
the little jerk imbiled such a substance to get drunk.
JL
Erik Sandblom
/dev/null@.com den 18-12-01 00.37:
> It was Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:28:47 +0100, and Erik Sandblom
> <sand...@artech.removethis.andthis.se> wrote
> |>| I used to own a tavern. Strangely enough, in Ohio, a bar
> |>| tender or license holder is considered liable for any
> |>| stupid mistakes which happen to a drunk after drinking
> |>| in my bar. It is a catch 22 situation.
> |>
> |> Oh well, there are other professions and businesses.
> |> Each type of business carries it's own risk. That's yours.
> |
> | So two wrongs make a right?
>
> No. All professions carry certain risks. That is the risk
> of owning a bar and serving alcohol.
Okay, but this one is different since it's entirely due to a stupid law.
It's not like the kind of risk which faces firefighters.
Justa Lurker
<sand...@artech.removethis.andthis.se> wrote:
|> No. All professions carry certain risks. That is the risk
|> of owning a bar and serving alcohol.
|
| Okay, but this one is different since it's entirely due to
| a stupid law. It's not like the kind of risk which faces
| firefighters.
Irrelevant reference.
JL
Erik Sandblom
/dev/null@.com den 18-12-01 01.08:
For this peculiar law, yes. For real life common sense, not at all.
Tim Kynerd
Sandblom wrote:
> i artikel lt8zc1a...@mis.dtek.chalmers.se, skrev Magnus Homann på
> d0a...@mis.dtek.chalmers.se den 17-12-01 19.37:
>> Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usen...@Zierke.com> writes:
>>
>>> But somebody lying on the track means that he does not care. Maybe he was
>>> unlucky with a girl, maybe there were other problems - sure he wouldn't
>>> have committed suicide the next morning, but that's true for many other
>>> suicide attempts as well, without any alcohol being involved.
>>
>> I'm not so sure. People I know have decided to lie down in the middle
>> of the road under the influence.
>
>
> I think most people understand that a car has a chance to stop, while a
> train doesn't.
how long the braking distance is for a train, and I think there is a strong
tendency to believe that it's as short as it is for a car.
Dave Cahill
internet to describe this kid's actions.
Oh well, DUMB F#$(!. Sorry, I apologize for my use of language.
dc
Ich bin Andreas" <gl...@mtolympus.ari.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.05.101121...@mtolympus.ari.net...
>
> Teen hit by train while asleep on tracks sues railroad
>
>
>
> Leila W. Knox
> The Tribune
>
> The 15-year-old Grover Beach boy who lost his legs and an arm in a train
> accident in September said in a lawsuit that the conductor and engineer
> breached their duty by not sounding the trains horn or bell as soon as
> they saw the teen lying on the tracks. The 15-year-old Grover Beach boy
> who lost his legs and an arm in a train accident in September said in a
> lawsuit that the conductor and engineer breached their duty by not
> sounding the trains horn or bell as soon as they saw the teen lying on the
> tracks.
>
> Cameron Clapp of Grover Beach filed a lawsuit in San Luis Obispo Superior
> Court last week against Union Pacific Railroad and the trains conductor
> and engineer.
>
> Clapp lost his legs and right arm early on the morning of Sept. 15 after
> he fell asleep on Union Pacific train tracks near his home on Front Street
> in Grover Beach. A Union Pacific freight train ran over the boy, severing
> both of his legs near the knee and his right arm at the shoulder.
>
> According to a Grover Beach police report, Clapps blood alcohol level
> shortly after the accident was 0.229 nearly three times the legal limit
> for an adult operating a motor vehicle.
>
> Steman, the engineer, should have sounded the horn or bell when they saw
> the boy lying across the tracks near the 600 block of Front Street in
> Grover Beach.
>
> If you see something lying across the tracks and you have to activate the
> emergency brake system, then why would you not, as you are bearing down on
> this kid on the tracks, also not sound your horn, said Jim Murphy, Clapps
> attorney. These horns are enormously powerful and can literally wake the
> dead.
>
> The suit states the train was about 640 feet south of Clapp when Steman
> and Faller saw the boy on the tracks. According to Grover Beach police,
> the engineer and conductor did not sound the horn because they were
> focused on activating the trains emergency brakes. Faller told police they
> did not see the boys body until Clapp was approximately 100 feet north of
> the train.
>
> Murphy acknowledges that Clapp had been drinking before he passed out on
> the tracks but said that does not excuse Union Pacific from liability.
>
> Its really not a question of excusing Cameron from any responsibility that
> he might have for his own conduct but about making other people
> responsible for their misconduct, Murphy said.
>
> Clapp is suing for damages related to hospital costs, medical expenses,
> loss of earning capacity and property damage. The suit states unspecified
> damages will be determined by either a judge or jury.
>
>
>
> send any email to andreas...@yahoo.com
>
Dave Cahill
be arrested.
Erik Sandblom
Cahill på aem7...@prodigy.net den 18-12-01 07.54:
> If this kid gets even a penny from the UP, I think the Judge and jury should
> be arrested.
I share everyone's indignation and frustration that people trespass tracks
and get run over. But as the lawyer pointed out, the trains should blow the
horn if someone is on the tracks. I would like to feel sure they do that; if
they don't, there should be some sort of punishment. Not necessarily a court
case, but it should at least be noted on the driver's record.
gimm...@doubleclick.com
> i artikel xKBT7.22642$dp3.215...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com, skrev Dave
> Cahill på aem7...@prodigy.net den 18-12-01 07.54:
>> If this kid gets even a penny from the UP, I think the Judge and jury should
>> be arrested.
> I share everyone's indignation and frustration that people trespass tracks
> and get run over. But as the lawyer pointed out, the trains should blow the
> horn if someone is on the tracks. I would like to feel sure they do that; if
> they don't, there should be some sort of punishment. Not necessarily a court
> case, but it should at least be noted on the driver's record.
What difference does it make, especially if someone is passed out from too
much alcohol? If the BAC of the person that got whacked was .229, what are
the chances that he would have been awakened by the sound of a train horn
100 feet away? Slim to none. All this carping about the train engineer's
supposed "dereliction of duty" is all so much hogwash designed to cover up
the fact that the person suing trespassed on railroad property and was
injured as a result.
--
Segmentation fault
Justa Lurker
<sand...@artech.removethis.andthis.se> wrote:
|>| Okay, but this one is different since it's entirely due
|>| to a stupid law. It's not like the kind of risk which
|>| faces firefighters.
|>
|> Irrelevant reference.
|
| For this peculiar law, yes. For real life common sense,
| not at all.
A firefighter could be sued for dereliction of duty. And
a fire department could be sued for a poor response, just
like a bar owner can be cited for selling alcohol to those
already drunk.
People choose their risks when they start a business. The
risk a bar owner chooses is the possibility that one of
their patrons will get drunk and cause damages that the
owner will be held responsible. A municipal authority
that forms a fire department also can be held liable for
their actions.
JL
Carl Zwanzig
>I share everyone's indignation and frustration that people trespass tracks
>and get run over. But as the lawyer pointed out, the trains should blow the
>horn if someone is on the tracks. I would like to feel sure they do that; if
>they don't, there should be some sort of punishment. Not necessarily a court
>case, but it should at least be noted on the driver's record.
One one hand, UP will probably settle w/o admittting liability, because
it'll be easier/cheaper than a trial. OTOH, If it makes it to a judge
they should summarily dismiss the suit as frivolous. Unfortunately, there
things seldom get a hearing.
On a third hand, some municipalities not have "No Blow" laws, at least
for grade crossings. The engineer probably -shold- blow the horn, but
I wouldn't penalize them if they didn't.
z!
el...@no.spam
Erik Sandblom <sand...@artech.removethis.andthis.se> wrote:
>I share everyone's indignation and frustration that people
>trespass tracks and get run over. But as the lawyer pointed out,
>the trains should blow the horn if someone is on the tracks.
>I would like to feel sure they do that; if they don't, there
>should be some sort of punishment. Not necessarily a court case,
>but it should at least be noted on the driver's record.
Do we know that the he didn't blow the horn? If so, did he
see the kid in time to do so?
Simm Webb
>If this kid gets even a penny from the UP, I think the Judge and jury should
>be arrested.
>dc
>"Ich bin Andreas" <gl...@mtolympus.ari.net> wrote in message
>news:Pine.BSF.4.05.101121...@mtolympus.ari.net...
>>
>> Teen hit by train while asleep on tracks sues railroad
>>
The engineer's big problem was that he didn't back up, place the kid properly on
the tracks, and go again. Then the kid wouldn't have sued.
Justice is not blind
It's premeditated
rob...@bonomi.invalid
According to published (mass media, you be the judge of the accuracy :) reports,
a) visibility was in the multiple-hundreds of feet.
b) operating personnnel _first_ effort went towards slowing down / trying
to stop.
I *believe* that early article in this thread indicated that horn _was_ sounded,
That lawyer's claim is "it wasn't sounded *early*enough*". That his position
is that they should have sounded horn first, immediatly upon seeing the 'object'
on the tracks.
I don't buy his "logic". Options are:
[A] 1) see obstacle on track,
2) immediately attempt to lessen impact.
3) attempt further identfication of object
4) recognize as "animate object -- sub-class human"
5) sound horn
[B] 1) see obstacle on track,
2) delay any action pending further identification
3) recognize as "animate object -- sub-class human"
4) sound horn
5) *NOW* begin attempt to lessen impact
I'll also suggest that the distance at which an 'object' on the tracks
can be recognized/identified as a animate object -- sub-class human, lying
on ground" is far, FAR, less than the distance at which it can be identified
as "something in the way".
Brian Paul Ehni
"rob...@bonomi.invalid" <rob...@bonomi.invalid> wrote:
> In article <10086999...@no.spam.spinics.net>, <el...@no.spam> wrote:
SNIP
> I'll also suggest that the distance at which an 'object' on the tracks
> can be recognized/identified as a animate object -- sub-class human, lying
> on ground" is far, FAR, less than the distance at which it can be identified
> as "something in the way".
And at track speed, all that is useless conjecture. I'm certain that in
their training, engineers are trained to react to such events in a set
pattern, just as airline pilots are (that's why railroads have multi-million
dollar simulators). When an object is spotted on the tracks, the first thing
to do is try to stop. Besides, it doesn't take very long to see an object,
set the brake in emergency, and pull the whistle cord.
Brian
Adam H. Kerman
>Okay, but this one is different since it's entirely due to a stupid law.
Dram shop laws are not stupid. Alchohol is a drug, remember? It's
intoxicating, remember? Some drunks are violent under its influence. The
judgment of many drunks is impaired. They lack motor skills. They lack
many inhibitions acting against self preservation and not causing harm to
others.
I wish there were the equivalent of dram shop laws for casino owners.
>It's not like the kind of risk which faces firefighters.
You are correct; it's irrelevant. The effects of alchohol are a known
quantity.
PC Replay
Actually, no engineer is ever trained "when" to initiate an emergency
application of the brakes. I was not taught "when", nor was it taught to any
of the new hires I trained.
If there is an engineer's training program on any property that does
instruct "when" to initiate an emergency application, I would be interested
in knowing of it. That is a gut call by the engineer, and he only!
Best Wishes
"Brian Paul Ehni" <be...@home.com> wrote in message
news:B84550B4.38F05%be...@home.com...
Brian Paul Ehni
regard, though.
Brian
On 12/21/01 10:18 PM, in article
bQTU7.6632$B47.3...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com, "PC Replay"
<PCRe...@twmi.rr.com> wrote:
> Hello Brian,
>
>
> Actually, no engineer is ever trained "when" to initiate an emergency
> application of the brakes. I was not taught "when", nor was it taught to any
> of the new hires I trained.
>
> If there is an engineer's training program on any property that does
> instruct "when" to initiate an emergency application, I would be interested
> in knowing of it. That is a gut call by the engineer, and he only!
>
> Best Wishes
> "Brian Paul Ehni" <be...@home.com> wrote in message
>>
Bob Comer
question: what if a 5 year old wandered onto the track because the
railroad was (is) too cheap to fence their right-of-way? Does the
train crew have a responsibility to sound the horn whenever they see
someone on the track? ANSWER: YES! So, in the case of the 15
year-old passed out on the track from illegal drinking--YES, the kid
is partially responsible, but the railroad is also partially
responsible. It's called "comparative negligence." I'm sick of
hearing and reading how the RR's won't fence their property. Then,
they bitch and moan about "trespassers". Imagine if the power
companies REFUSED to fence the high-voltage substations, people,
especially children, got electrocuted and then the power companies
totally blamed the victims. The situation is just about the same with
the RR. There is extreme danger, but the operator/owner of the
property refuses to take some responsibility for keeping people out!
Bob Comer,
Forensic and Electronic Research,
Magnolia, Ohio
> >
> >
Adam H. Kerman
>Let me ask this question: what if a 5 year old wandered onto the track
>because the railroad was (is) too cheap to fence their right-of-way? Does
>the train crew have a responsibility to sound the horn whenever they see
>someone on the track? ANSWER: YES!
What are you, lobbying to be on a Cook County or a Bronx County jury?
You rather missed the issues. Five-year-olds should be supervised, not allowed
to wander onto railroad tracks. It's not relevant. Besides, would a toddler
actually realize he was in danger and move off the tracks?
The issue isn't if the engineer should have sounded the horn. No one is
disputing it! You ignore the fact that they followed procedure! They put the
train into emergency stop first. There wasn't enough time when they discovered
it was a kid on the track.
>So, in the case of the 15 year-old passed out on the track from illegal
>drinking--YES, the kid is partially responsible, but the railroad is also
>partially responsible. It's called "comparative negligence."
No it's not. It's called "physical impossibility" and "making ridiculous
assumptions" and "second guessing". What if they ignored procedure and sounded
the horn first? It wouldn't have made any difference. But the lawsuit would
have blamed the engineer for ignoring procedure.
>I'm sick of hearing and reading how the RR's won't fence their property.
>Then, they bitch and moan about "trespassers".
Do you control thousands of miles of right-of-way? Is "control" actually a
concept? Did you ignore the several messages concerning kids who cut the
fences where they exist and still trespass?
Do state highway departments get sued because expressway rights-of-way aren't
fenced off? 'Course not; most states gave themselves sovereign immunity.
Railroads don't have that luxury.
Brian Paul Ehni
TPvV7.218371$My2.12...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com, "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
Then there was the drunk in Chicago who climbed OVER the fence to relieve
himself on the third rail....
CTA STILL got sued on that one.
Brian
Adam H. Kerman
>Then there was the drunk in Chicago who climbed OVER the fence to relieve
>himself on the third rail....
>CTA STILL got sued on that one.
And paid out. No fence. He wandered onto the right-of-way from a grade
crossing. The plaintiff's estate raised the issue, that the jury apparently
bought, that CTA had sign warning of danger at the grade crossing. The jury
ignored the fact that 1) it was too dark to see the sign, 2) the drunk couldn't
read English (Korean immigrant), 3) and he was too shit-faced to read anything
in the first place.
Perhaps the other Brian could explain how a railroad could fence off a grade
crossing. Now, CTA does have track gates across two grade crossings at the
north end of the Evanston "L" (Purple Line), but they open very slowly, thus
remaining open for a long period of time before and after the train enters and
clears the grade crossing. The gates do not prevent anyone from standing on
the tracks within the grade crossing, nor climbing the gates.
Tim Kynerd
Actually, it's called "attractive nuisance," and it doesn't apply to
15-year-olds, only to small children who don't know any better.
Also, in this case, I believe it was established that the crew DID sound the
horn; the dumb-ass's lawyer is arguing that they didn't sound it early
enough.
> I'm sick of hearing and reading how the RR's won't fence their property.
> Then, they bitch and moan about "trespassers". Imagine if the power
> companies REFUSED to fence the high-voltage substations, people,
> especially children, got electrocuted and then the power companies totally
> blamed the victims. The situation is just about the same with the RR.
> There is extreme danger, but the operator/owner of the property refuses to
> take some responsibility for keeping people out!
People, including 15-year-olds, should be taking the responsibility for
keeping THEMSELVES out. They've got no business being on the railroad
tracks or next to them, period, end of story, fence or no fence.
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden t...@tram.nu
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 8:49
Sunset in Stockholm today: 14:43
WooF
> > I'm sick of hearing and reading how the RR's won't fence their property.
> > Then, they bitch and moan about "trespassers". Imagine if the power
> > companies REFUSED to fence the high-voltage substations, people,
> > especially children, got electrocuted and then the power companies totally
> > blamed the victims. The situation is just about the same with the RR.
> > There is extreme danger, but the operator/owner of the property refuses to
> > take some responsibility for keeping people out!
By this reasoning, all highways, streets, roads, rural lanes,
and back alleys should be fenced.
George Scithers of owls...@netaxs.com
Justa Lurker
WooF <owls...@netaxs.com> wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
| By this reasoning, all highways, streets, roads, rural lanes,
| and back alleys should be fenced.
Sue the parents for not having a fence around their kid.
JL
mike g.
talks about is the FACT that the lawyer just throw a lot of "S" at the jury
and they bought in to it. Also most RR settle these cases and that why the
LAWYERS names everyone in this kind of suit, even the guy that cleans the
office.
bt
> hearing and reading how the RR's won't fence their property. Then,
I'm sick and tired of parents that are too cheap to fence their yards.....
Michael Senchuk
off all the major freeways, yet it is not uncommon for somebody to be
wandering on one of these and be struck and killed.
We can't protect people from their own stupidity. If you fall asleep on
train tracks, I call that Darwinism.
--
Michael L. Senchuk
Chief Engineer, Reckless & Veiled Railroad
http://www.heatherandmichael.com/recklessandveiled/
mic...@qazam.com
Adam H. Kerman
>We can't protect people from their own stupidity. If you fall asleep on
>train tracks, I call that Darwinism.
Only if they haven't reproduced.
Derek Boles
here. The kid is 15 and he acted like a moron, which many people do
when they're stoned out of their minds. The way people carry on here,
you'd think he was Osama Bin Laden. He'll have the rest of his
miserable life to contemplate his stupidity. Obviously some ambulance
chaser convinced his parents that they could get something from the
railroad so the process begins.
If this incident annoys you, then you ought to direct your venom
towards a legal system that encourages and rewards these sorts of
ridiculous lawsuits. Examples:
Some senile old bag spills coffee on her lap and she decides to sue
Macdonalds. A jury of her "peers", namely people like us, decides that
she deserves compensation. Now everybody sues at the drop of a hat.
A kid uses a pair of wire cutters to break into a quarry to race his
moto-cross bike. He spills and is a paraplegic now. The jury decides
that the township didn't make the fence strong enough. Those same
"peers" pay more taxes to pay the family off.
Some asshole at a pool party decides to dive off the pool shed after he
gets drunk. Everyone yells at him to stop. The jury decides that the
hosts are partly responsible because they didn't try hard enough to get
him off the roof.
I would respectfully suggest that you direct your vitriol towards the
lawyers who profit from this bullshit and the legal system that
encourages them for doing so.
Railroads are big corporations and our "peers" consider it fair to make
them pay for personal tragedies that are beyond their control.
Adam H. Kerman
>I'm really amazed at the hostility that this incident has generated
>here. The kid is 15 and he acted like a moron, which many people do
>when they're stoned out of their minds. The way people carry on here,
>you'd think he was Osama Bin Laden.
SON OF GODWIN!
WooF
serve on a jury. And if you are empaneled on a jury, do not let
sympathy for the plaintiff or the defendant blind you to the
facts in the case. Above all, remember that lawyers in the case
(on both sides) are being paid to lie through their fangs.
George Scithers of owls...@netaxs.com
Tim Kynerd
> I'm really amazed at the hostility that this incident has generated
> here. The kid is 15 and he acted like a moron, which many people do
> when they're stoned out of their minds. The way people carry on here,
> you'd think he was Osama Bin Laden. He'll have the rest of his
> miserable life to contemplate his stupidity. Obviously some ambulance
> chaser convinced his parents that they could get something from the
> railroad so the process begins.
>
> If this incident annoys you, then you ought to direct your venom
> towards a legal system that encourages and rewards these sorts of
> ridiculous lawsuits.
That IS where we've been directing our venom.
> Examples:
>
> Some senile old bag spills coffee on her lap and she decides to sue
> Macdonalds. A jury of her "peers", namely people like us, decides that
> she deserves compensation.
Wrong. The coffee was dangerously hot, something like 180 F or so.
McDonald's *used to* always serve its coffee that hot, which is obviously
dangerous and irresponsible; now, since that lawsuit, they've suddenly
acquired the sense to have their coffee at a more reasonable temperature.
-snip-
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden t...@tram.nu
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 8:49
Sunset in Stockholm today: 14:52
Merritt Mullen
> In article <010120022306544566%Derek...@home.com>, Derek Boles wrote:
>>Examples:
>>
>>Some senile old bag spills coffee on her lap and she decides to sue
>>Macdonalds. A jury of her "peers", namely people like us, decides that
>>she deserves compensation.
> Wrong. The coffee was dangerously hot, something like 180 F or so.
> McDonald's *used to* always serve its coffee that hot, which is obviously
> dangerous and irresponsible; now, since that lawsuit, they've suddenly
> acquired the sense to have their coffee at a more reasonable temperature.
AND, McDonalds was arrogant enough to not admit any liability and
willingness to correct the problem, or to settle with the woman. She
had to go to court to get satisfaction, and secondly, force McDonalds to
fix the problem before someone else was injured.
Merritt
randee
the time you get it actually into a coffee cup, what with the pouring
and all, it's temp is more like 140-150. What the big Mc was doing was
using a steamer to steam the beans rather than brewing them with hot
water. This allowed them to use cheaper beans since the steaming
process would extract any remnant of flavor. Starbucks is a good
example of a hot brewed coffee (even tho theirs is too close to a French
roast for my taste).
--
wf.
Wayne Flowers
Randee Greenwald
ran...@zianet.com
Dan Morisseau
stated...
And to further compound their woes, McD's defense counsel insisted
(in his final argument to the jury) that the matronly plaintiff was
largely responsible for the actual extent and severity of her own
injuries (regardless of whatever errors McD's may have made in serving it
too hot) because she failed to promptly exit from her car on spilling the
coffee and publicly disrobe in the parking lot in order to prevent the
hot liquid from causing additional damage to her privates as a result of
the hot material being held in close contact by her super heated and
soaked clothing. It came off (I am told - a contemporary WSJ article) as
arrogant and unsympathetic to a sympathetic, elderly plaintiff who had
unquestionably suffered serious burns. Such hubris rarely goes
unpunished.
--
Dan Morisseau, N7ZXL - N 38°34'53", W 90°22'32", 680'
On the sunrise side of Mo-Pac's famous Kirkwood Hill!
Watkins Johnson HF-1000: 60' Random Wire & Palomar Loop
ICOM R-7000/Optocom: Discone
"Political correctness is nothing more than tyranny with manners"
Stan de SD
But it takes a hell of a long time to stop a moving train,
and if we're talking about passengers/commuters, and
emergancy brake application can badly hurt people
on board. As far as I'm concerned, the safety of the train
crew (and any passengers) takes precedence over whether
some moron who doesn't value his/her life gets off the
track or not.
Stan de SD
> I stand corrected; seems obvious that they should have SOME training in
this
> regard, though.
And people SHOULD have some common sense
to STAY OFF THE TRACKS when a train is
coming. If they don't value their own lives, why
in the hell should the rest of us get worked up
when one of these bozos gets rendered under
an F40PH pilot? :O(
Stan de SD
"Bob Comer" <rco...@nci2000.net> wrote in message
> "Train hitting drunk kid on the track." Let me ask this
> question: what if a 5 year old wandered onto the track because the
> railroad was (is) too cheap to fence their right-of-way?
Where in the hell were the PARENTS of said 5 year-old,
who was TRESSPASSING when he was hit by said train?
> Does the
> train crew have a responsibility to sound the horn whenever they see
> someone on the track?
Sure, and in a perfect world, they would instantaneously see
the kid, sound the horn, and the kid would have the common
sense to get the hell out of the way. Sorry to inform you,
however, that dozens of accident report and body bags full
of rendered human flesh indicate that it doesn't always work
out that way. However, if we were to use the classic approach
of the traffic accident investigator and ask 'who had the right
of way', LOGICAL people would absolve the locomotive
crew...
> ANSWER: YES! So, in the case of the 15
> year-old passed out on the track from illegal drinking--YES, the kid
> is partially responsible, but the railroad is also partially
> responsible.
And the PARENTS are partly responsible, NOT the railroad.
This is the typical goo-goo response from "modern" parents:
it's NEVER their fault, so they go looking for someone to
blame. What a crock of shit. :O(
> It's called "comparative negligence." I'm sick of
> hearing and reading how the RR's won't fence their property.
And I'm sick and tired of listening to bleeding-heart assholes
like you take leave of their common sense, and blame entire
institutions for the carelessness and stupidity of a few. You
know, rail transportation has been around on this planet for
over 170 years, and until recently, it has been commonly
accepted that carelessly crossing active railroad tracks was
pretty stupid and inexcusable. Unfortately, social policies that
encourage the least mentally proficient to reproduce at the
fastest rate, as well as a general philosophy that individuals
can't be held responsible for their own actions, has resulted
in a surge of fatalities trackside. Funny, however, in nearly
all these cases, how the person killed has been guilty of either
TRESSPASSING or violating traffic or public safety regulations
(like driving a car through a grade crossing when warning lights
were flashing)!!!
> Then, they bitch and moan about "trespassers". Imagine if the power
> companies REFUSED to fence the high-voltage substations, people,
> especially children, got electrocuted and then the power companies
> totally blamed the victims. The situation is just about the same with
> the RR. There is extreme danger, but the operator/owner of the
> property refuses to take some responsibility for keeping people out!
Hey, if you're too goddamned stupid to stay out of the way
of a moving train, the best thing that can happen to the gene
pool is to quickly and effectively remove you from it...
Stan de SD
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
news:TPvV7.218371$My2.12...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
> Bob Comer <rco...@nci2000.net> wrote:
>
> >Let me ask this question: what if a 5 year old wandered onto the track
> >because the railroad was (is) too cheap to fence their right-of-way? Does
> >the train crew have a responsibility to sound the horn whenever they see
> >someone on the track? ANSWER: YES!
>
> What are you, lobbying to be on a Cook County or a Bronx County jury?
Bob sounds like a member of the indian tribe in BN territory back in
the 1980's, where one of the tribal elders (with a BA of over 0.25)
chose to drive a pick-up truck overloaded with family members
in front of a moving coal train, and promptly came out in second place.
The tribal council decided to hold its own kangaroo court loaded
with relatives of the deceased on the jury, and awarded itself $20
million. What a frigging joke... :O(
Stan de SD
"bt" <bs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c323afc$1...@nopics.sjc...
> > responsible. It's called "comparative negligence." I'm sick of
> > hearing and reading how the RR's won't fence their property. Then,
>
> I'm sick and tired of parents that are too cheap to fence their yards.....
bt returns that serve nicely. bt1, bob 0. :O)
Silas Warner
Stan de SD wrote:
> Sure, and in a perfect world, they would instantaneously see
> the kid, sound the horn, and the kid would have the common
> sense to get the hell out of the way. Sorry to inform you,
> however, that dozens of accident report and body bags full
> of rendered human flesh indicate that it doesn't always work
> out that way. However, if we were to use the classic approach
> of the traffic accident investigator and ask 'who had the right
> of way', LOGICAL people would absolve the locomotive
> crew...
Which reminds me of an incident I personally saw on Metrolink
about 1991. The Saugus local was coming south on a weekday
morning, with me in the railfan's seat. In San Fernando we
were parallelling the main road (I'm sorry, I no longer remember
street names -- advancing age) and approached one of the
side-road crossings when a Buick passed the green light on the
east side of the track, and stopped right on the ROW. The
cab car flipped him around and peeled his bumper off but did
no other damage. But, of course, the police had to be called and
the driver had to stop and get out to investigate. I went as far
as the open exit door, to hear an excited Indian driver yelling,
"The light was green! I had the right of way! The train was
supposed to stop!"
Silas Warner
Greg Halpin
Bob Comer wrote:
> I'm sick of hearing and reading how the RR's won't fence their property.
You know, I've seen people mention this before. How does fencing a right-of-way keep people
off of the tracks? What happens to the fence at the grade crossing? Some sort of high-speed
electric gate that only opens when a train approaches and the crossing gates are down?
Sounds like a problem we have in my home town. Several years ago, a youth drowned in a small
creek that became swollen after a severe storm. Public outcry was enormous, and the "we gotta
do something" crowd raised money and erected a fence around the stream, put a plaque on the
fence, etc.
This summer, during another severe storm, another kid drowns in the creek by climbing
over/under/through the fence. Now they want to completely cover the waterway.
I'm sorry that two kids dies, but it seems to me that the problem that needs addressed is NOT
at that creek.
And, it seems that the problam that needs addressed is not at that right-of-way.
gimm...@doubleclick.com
[snipped]
> This summer, during another severe storm, another kid drowns in the creek
> by climbing over/under/through the fence. Now they want to completely cover
> the waterway.
Haahahahaha! Only in America.
--
Segmentation fault
charles hobbs
> "Bob Comer" <rco...@nci2000.net> wrote in message
> > "Train hitting drunk kid on the track." Let me ask this
> > question: what if a 5 year old wandered onto the track because the
> > railroad was (is) too cheap to fence their right-of-way?
>
> Where in the hell were the PARENTS of said 5 year-old,
> who was TRESSPASSING when he was hit by said train?
>
That happened a couple of years ago with the Metrolink out in
Upland, CA....two little kids wandered out of their house and
onto the tracks, while the parents were zonked out on drugs...
I think Metrolink settled with them out of court, just to keep out of
trouble....
Keith Willshaw
"charles hobbs" <cho...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3C33FA78...@socal.rr.com...
The British courts are somewhat more robust
When a couple of kids were killed on a railway in
Wales the parents were succesfully prosecuted
for manslaughter.
Keith
Kennedy
> Another way to cut down on frivolous lawsuits: be willing to
> serve on a jury. And if you are empaneled on a jury, do not let
> sympathy for the plaintiff or the defendant blind you to the
> facts in the case. Above all, remember that lawyers in the case
> (on both sides) are being paid to lie through their fangs.
That doesn't always work, because if you're going in with your mind made
up, you won't be picked. And, even if you're able to hide it, you're
really screwing the system because you're not impartial to begin with.
You're going to be the one holdout, and the case may well be retried with a
different jury. In any case, you're going to be the one trying to convince
everybody else that the plaintiff isn't entitled to squat, and that might
not be easy if everybody else thinks that the defendant has deep pockets.
Kennedy
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service
el...@no.spam
charles hobbs <cho...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>That happened a couple of years ago with the Metrolink out in
>Upland, CA....two little kids wandered out of their house and
>onto the tracks, while the parents were zonked out on drugs...
One parent actually.
>I think Metrolink settled with them out of court, just to keep out of
>trouble....
Didn't the mother go to jail?
PaulR
That said, I wonder if the RR's have helped make the problem worse
than it might be.
Back in the "olden days", railfans were welcomed (or at least tolerated)
on the property, so long as they behaved responsibly and respected
safety rules. Which meant that the railfans found it to their advantage
to learn the safety rules. Railfans tend to talk about their hobby, so
others
in the community also learned about safety rules.
But now the RR's have isolated themselves. They've adopted a
"zero tolerance" policy toward tresspassers. Do they have a right to
do this? Of course. But the result is that RR's are furhter removed
from the community. Fewer people become railfans and fewer yet
have an opportunity to learn the rules from the railroaders.
I don't have a good answer to this. My guess is if I were running a
RR, I'd also adopt a "zero tolerance" policy. But I wonder if it's
perhaps not the wisest thing that might be done.
Paul R
"Stan de SD" <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d3QY7.17452$yi.17...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
grasping the sparrow's tail
"PaulR" <nos...@nospam.please> wrote:
>First, I agree with you.
>
>That said, I wonder if the RR's have helped make the problem worse
>than it might be.
>
>Back in the "olden days", railfans were welcomed (or at least tolerated)
>on the property, so long as they behaved responsibly and respected
>safety rules. Which meant that the railfans found it to their advantage
>to learn the safety rules. Railfans tend to talk about their hobby, so
>others
>in the community also learned about safety rules.
>
<snip!>
RJ
Next, the bleeding hearts will want 10 foot high fences with razor
wire along all streets. Yes, even in your subdivision. If you leave
the gate open to your drive, you will go to jail.
This will be to protect the CHILDREN from wandering into the street
and getting run over. Because their brain dead parents could not teach
their children 'not to play in the street'.
Children get run over or hit by cars more that people and trains.
Then huge nets to catch crashing airplanes.. HMMMM lets see smiming
pools with fake water so you can not drown....etc....
Ron
2145
Charles Allen
"grasping the sparrow's tail" <nos...@mindsprung.com> wrote in message
news:3c35c49a...@news.mindspring.com...
> zero tolerance? One word is the cause: INSURANCE
>
Railroads usually are self insured, meaning they take their own hits.
Dan Morisseau
stated...
It is a teensy bit more complex than that - they do carry insurance
albeit with a hefty "self insured retention" (deductible). Besides,
"insurance" in the commercial world and especially at these levels of
risk and SIR isn't quite what one might think - a free pass on losses
exceeding the SIR. I have likened it to being more like a guaranteed loan
to cover specified losses and to be repaid at increased premiums where
actual losses have exceeded the anticipated levels at which the policy
was rated. The professionals will blow me out of the water on this, but
it helps me explain it to those who think it is identical to their auto
or homeowners policy. If you want to get really arcane, look at Hull and
Machinery, P&I or Ocean Cargo covers.
TinMan1332
To quote a line from "Oh Brother Where Art Thou"... "Lots of respectable
people have been hit by trains." <G>.
Charles
to fence off the Highways and Expressways next!
Who in their right mind will cross a freeway?
"Stan de SD" <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d3QY7.17452$yi.17...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
BIG DADDY KING
nynhn...@earthlink.net says...
I have to agree. If someone is so stupid/drunk/high that they lay down
or cross tracks without checking to see if a train is coming, and they
get killed/maimed, well, that's too bad, but it's THEIR FAULT or, if it's
a little kid, it's the PARENT'S FAULT. Just like when a doofus runs the
gates and gets pasted by a train, that's too bad, but the family
shouldn't get paid by the RR for the stupidty of dad/mom/bro/sis, etc.
If a railroad DID fence the tracks, who pays to maintain the fence, and
is the railroad responsible for some dopey kid that climbs over or breaks
down the fence and gets killed by a train?? NO!!!
You screw up and die, too bad..
BDK
BigDaddy
"BIG DADDY KING" <bd...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16b804d09...@news-central.giganews.com...
Wolf Kirchmeir
=>What's all this bullshit about fencing Railroad tracks, then they will have
=>to fence off the Highways and Expressways next!
Don't make this suggestion! Some civil ort lawyer will pick it up, and get
just the ruling he needs from a jury made up of the victim's peers - ie, just
as stupid as he was.
All this crap is the result of the US civil law system, which is the wonder
of a horrified and fascinated world.
Wolf Kirchmeir
If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on the train?
(Garrison Keillor)
HaRRy
misc.transport.rail.americas:
»What's all this bullshit about fencing Railroad tracks, then they will have
»to fence off the Highways and Expressways next!
»Who in their right mind will cross a freeway?
Here in southern San Diego we have exactly that problem -- or had it before a
tall fence was installed down the middle of the freeways from the Border to
more than 5 miles north. Numerous illegal aliens were killed trying to run
across these freeways before the fence. There are still caution signs along
the three freeways involved (I-5, I-805 and a state route) which show in black
silhouette on yellow a family of 3 people running.
This is also true near the INS check station on I-5 about 50 miles north of the
border (near San Clemente CA) where both the signs and fence were installed to
prevent numerous deaths.
Of course, these are all illegal aliens from Mexico and further south, who have
little or no experience with vehicles at freeway speeds. Red-blooded Americans
would never do such a thing, right?
HaRRy, San Diego
--
http://communities.prodigy.net/trains/index2.html
(To e-mail reply change no.spam to prodigy dot net)
Demetre
> Hey, if you're too goddamned stupid to stay out of the way
> of a moving train, the best thing that can happen to the gene
> pool is to quickly and effectively remove you from it...
I'll second that.
Russ
Trains are very different then they where in the days of steam.
I promise you that no one would miss MILW engine #1 (A Class A Atlantic) as
it moved at 70 MPH.
A modern diesel is much quieter. If there is not a grade crossing to cause a
sounding of the horn......
Then we have Amtrak's new trains, not even the sound of a prime mover.
<Demetre> wrote in message news:3c579987...@news.mindspring.com...
Tim Kynerd
>
><Demetre> wrote in message news:3c579987...@news.mindspring.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 someone wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Hey, if you're too goddamned stupid to stay out of the way
>> > of a moving train, the best thing that can happen to the gene
>> > pool is to quickly and effectively remove you from it...
>>
>> I'll second that.
>
> I also agree, but then again.
>
> Trains are very different then they where in the days of steam.
> I promise you that no one would miss MILW engine #1 (A Class A Atlantic) as
> it moved at 70 MPH.
>
> A modern diesel is much quieter. If there is not a grade crossing to cause a
> sounding of the horn......
>
> Then we have Amtrak's new trains, not even the sound of a prime mover.
IOW, lots of good reasons to stay the hell off the tracks, period.
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden t...@tram.nu
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 8:10
Sunset in Stockholm today: 15:51
My rail transit photos at http://www.kynerd.nu
Demetre
>...A modern diesel is much quieter. If there is not a grade crossing to cause a
>sounding of the horn......
A continually promulgated myth, that diesels are quieter than steam locomotives.
Having worked on both I know from first-hand knowledge that steam locomotives do not
make more than a fraction of the noise that diesels make. Even when it does make
noise, such as working hard upgrade, a steamer does not make as much noise as a
diesel doing the same job. The last mainline steam that I was around were N&W 611 and
1218. I have worked on locos built as early as 1911 and as late as 1952, both coal
and oil fired, 2-8-0 all the way to 2-8-8-4. On modern welded rail such that there
is no "click-clack" You cannot hear the locos coming until they go past you. In
fact, it is a bit eerie to see such huge machines moving at such speed in almost
complete silence. OTOH I can hear the diesels coming three or four minutes before
they get there.
Diesel quieter than steam? Don't you believe it, it ain't so.
Pierre A Plauzoles
> It was Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:28:47 +0100, and Erik Sandblom
> <sand...@artech.removethis.andthis.se> wrote
> |>| I used to own a tavern. Strangely enough, in Ohio, a bar
> |>| tender or license holder is considered liable for any
> |>| stupid mistakes which happen to a drunk after drinking
> |>| in my bar. It is a catch 22 situation.
> |>
> |> Oh well, there are other professions and businesses.
> |> Each type of business carries it's own risk. That's yours.
> |
> | So two wrongs make a right?
>
> No. All professions carry certain risks. That is the risk
> of owning a bar and serving alcohol.
>
> | Anyway, the US is a free country, and with freedom comes
> | responsibility. If someone gets drunk at a bar and then
> | gets run over by a car, it is *not* the bartender's fault.
> | Common sense.
>
> The law would disagree with your common sense.
>
> |>| It may be the law, but it makes no common sense. The
> |>| responsibility should remain with the drinker.
> |>
> |> The drinkers have proven irresponsible.
> |
> | Wimps. It's your own fault if you get drunk unless
> | someone gets the alchohol in you without you knowing
> | it. It can't be blamed on someone else.
>
> The laws disagree with you.
>
> |> Plus, getting back to the case at hand, this is a 15yr
> |> old who was at 0.229 - well over where a 15yr old should
> |> be. Providing him should be a felony.
> |
> | He probably bought window-cleaning liquid at the gas store
> | and drank that. Is that the gas station's fault? No. The
> | idiot misused both the liquid and the tracks, and has
> | himself to blame.
>
> That is a groundless statement. There is no evidence that
> the little jerk imbiled such a substance to get drunk.
Liquids are substances. Just because they aren't solids does not make
them any less of a "substance" -- except maybe in the fine print in the
law. If he didn't do so, where did the 0.229 blood alcohol count come
from? Thin air?
Pierre A Plauzoles
> i artikel xKBT7.22642$dp3.215...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com, skrev Dave
> Cahill på aem7...@prodigy.net den 18-12-01 07.54:
>
> > If this kid gets even a penny from the UP, I think the Judge and jury should
> > be arrested.
Now you are talking. Malpractice.
> I share everyone's indignation and frustration that people trespass tracks
> and get run over. But as the lawyer pointed out, the trains should blow the
> horn if someone is on the tracks. I would like to feel sure they do that; if
> they don't, there should be some sort of punishment. Not necessarily a court
> case, but it should at least be noted on the driver's record.
The problem is that there are so many people who don't like the noise of a train
going by that there are noise laws prohibiting an engineer from blowing the horn.
The neighborhood residents only have themselves to blame for that.
Pierre A Plauzoles
> I also agree, but then again.
>
> Trains are very different then they where in the days of steam.
> I promise you that no one would miss MILW engine #1 (A Class A Atlantic) as
> it moved at 70 MPH.
>
> A modern diesel is much quieter. If there is not a grade crossing to cause a
> sounding of the horn......
>
> Then we have Amtrak's new trains, not even the sound of a prime mover.
I disagree. A juicejack [electric locomotive] would be quiet, but let the
Pacific Surfliner go by, and I can tell you exactly when the diesel goes by,
even from 100-200 feet away.
Pierre A Plauzoles
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 06:54:21 GMT, "Dave Cahill" <aem7...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >If this kid gets even a penny from the UP, I think the Judge and jury should
> >be arrested.
> >dc
> >"Ich bin Andreas" <gl...@mtolympus.ari.net> wrote in message
> >news:Pine.BSF.4.05.101121...@mtolympus.ari.net...
> >>
> >> Teen hit by train while asleep on tracks sues railroad
> >>
> The engineer's big problem was that he didn't back up, place the kid properly on
> the tracks, and go again. Then the kid wouldn't have sued.
That may be a joke but it is in bad taste, almost as bad as the kid 1/ getting
drunk, or 2/ getting on the tracks. There is one thing I have to say for your
comment: the kid and his parents were asking for exactly this kind of joke (and
worse) to surface.
Stan de SD
"Russ" <rada...@grnet.com> wrote in message
news:u5fdd48...@corp.supernews.com...
> I also agree, but then again.
>
> Trains are very different then they where in the days of steam.
> I promise you that no one would miss MILW engine #1 (A Class A Atlantic)
as
> it moved at 70 MPH.
>
> A modern diesel is much quieter. If there is not a grade crossing to cause
a
> sounding of the horn......
If there is not a grade crossing, then you are probably trespassing. You're
telling me that looking both ways before you cross the tracks is too much to
be expected? Gimme a break.
>
> Then we have Amtrak's new trains, not even the sound of a prime mover.
Electrics have been around for 100 years now, and several generations
managed to live to reproductive age any multiply. Why must you make excuses
for idiots?
Dan Yemiola
Interstate Highway System was authorized in the 1950's.
The problem is that some people are NOT in their right minds, or are too
young to know better.
At least once or twice a year I wind up at an accident scene where pieces
someone have to be scraped of the superhighway or the pilot of a GP-30.
In 1993 I responded to a call where a drunk had crawled under a locomotive
.(with its motor running), to sleep.
He was lucky, the new crew found him as they arrived for a crew change, and
he got to spend three days as a guest of Davidson County.
Dan Yemiola
Dan Yemiola
Charles <nynhn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Vjq38.5186$Fh4.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...