Western Railroad Discussion > Amputees sue CN for creating unsafe environment

Trains blocking streets, people climb through trains lose limbs, then sue railroad.

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/38214470/amputees-sue-railroad-in-iowa-saying-it-creates-danger


Was watching the Thomasville webcam recently and an NS intermodal made an emergency stop, sat there about 10 minutes getting air back, and an entire family crossed through the well cars, mother, father, 2 or 3 kids. The father even stooped under the car looking for something that dropped. No more than 15 seconds later the train took off. I suppose a lot of people don't even wait 5 minutes before going through, which is hard for anyone to prove.

Ok Im going out on a limb here and assuming this will cost someone an arm & a leg. I mean, it sounds like someone will have to go to the SECOND HAND shop to do there shopping from now on.

From a legal standpoint, I dont think these people crossing through or underneath the train will have a leg to stand on!

Lets just hope nobody loses their heads over this.

I know our society is falling apart, but this takes it to a whole new level!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/18 14:49 by wigwag.

Juries in the US often look at the consequences of an action, not the stupid decisions which caused the actions and the suffering. It's part of the trend toward wealth re-distribution and jackpot justice.

Stupidity should be painful...

Trains are dangerous, just ask the railroaders that have lost limbs and their lives during the course of daily routines. The "public" just doesn't care or are aware of the dangers on the railroad tracks. Doug

wigwag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok Im going out on a limb here and assuming this
> will cost someone an arm & a leg. I mean, it
> sounds like someone will have to go to the SECOND
> HAND shop to do there shopping from now on.
>
> From a legal standpoint, I dont think these people
> crossing through or underneath the train will have
> a leg to stand on!
>
> Lets just hope nobody loses their heads over
> this.
>
> I know our society is falling apart, but this
> takes it to a whole new level!

I never have understood the mentality of sticking your neck out to cross under of through a train.

Sounds like an interesting set of circumstances in this case. A couple of key considerations play out here:

One - has the railroad ever approached the city/county/state about ways to engineer out the risk (bridges, yard outside of town, etc.)? The article argues that the railroad won't do it on their own, but per eminent domain they don't have to. If CN has attempted to participate in a public/private cost sharing project and the government balked, then CN can use this as their defense and put the blame on the city.

Two - can the plaintiff's prove that CN's operational activities were not necessary? Good luck telling them how they can and can't operate.

Three - How will "local-ism" play out here? Guessing the plaintiffs will try to use the foreign company angle. At the same time, the fact the lawyers filing the lawsuit are from another state could be used to play the "opportunistic" card by the defense.

Lastly - RR's have a track record of trying to offer some punitive settlements to victims to avoid public court battles. Wonder what the odds are this happens here?

Once again there needs to be consequences for needlessly blocking crossings.

Doug Wetherhold
Macungie, PA

The city should build some grade separations - that's what the county did here in Mojave years ago...
They bear just as much responsibility as the railroad, which pays taxes to the city.

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

"A third lawsuit is pending in Chicago in the case of a former Waterloo resident who lost three limbs in a similar collision in 2011."
Three limbs ??????

I see it all the time at the Paducah and Louisville yard. The north end of the yard has 9 tracks that cross the street at grade. When switching, it's not uncommon for them to block the crossing for 30 minutes. People walk up to the train and climb over it like it's just a stairway there for them to cross something. They don't even hesitate.

At the University of Louisville campus, the CSX tracks through the east side, between the old campus and several athletic fields. The university had to put up these signs. I'll bet they don't work.

The one thing that seems to be missing from when I was a kid, people don't take responsibility for their own actions. It used to be that if you did something stupid and got hurt, well, you just picked yourself up and continued on. Today, lawyers advertise and tell you they can get you a zillion dollars, regardless of who's fault it was. He'll probably sue CN because it was their railroad. UPRR because they had had a locomotive somewhere on that train, NS because the car that actually injured him belonged to them, and BNSF because he thinks their locomotive look nice.

John

---

ALCO630 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once again there needs to be consequences for
> needlessly blocking crossings.

I hope you are being facetious. How do you define "needlessly"? There is usually a legitimate reason, whether it's obvious to you or not.

No I'm not. Search the TO archives and you will find plenty of threads about trains being parked leaving crossings blocked.

Posted from Android

Doug Wetherhold
Macungie, PA

ALCO630 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No I'm not. Search the TO archives and you will
> find plenty of threads about trains being parked
> leaving crossings blocked.

Stopped or "parked"? There is a big difference.

What I didn't see mentioned in the article are the steps that the city has taken, in the 18 years since the first loss of limb claimed in the lawsuit, to protect the safety of its citizens.

The article did mention that trains are stopped "sometimes for hours multiple times per day, while they undergo maintenance and safety checks and load and unload cars." So clearly the reporting is accurate. . .

Even tho no obvious negligence on CN, money says they will get hit with a verdict costing some dollars. It goes on all the time.

tomstp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even tho no obvious negligence on CN, money says
> they will get hit with a verdict costing some
> dollars. It goes on all the time.


They may agree to a settlement even before the case goes to trial.

(Many large corporations prefer to settle early with a generous payment than go to trial. A civil jury of six citizens, fair and true, may have any number of scores to settle. Having the deep pockets isn't a plus for the firm.

The counsel for the injured plaintiffs may prefer to get their 20%-30% early, rather than waiting years for a trial.)

The plaintiffs have a good case. The railroad has created an on-going dangerous situation as part of its normal operations that has provoked residents to take risky chances. Deposing the local railroad operating managers could easily confirm the routine creating the situation. The usual name-calling and blaming the victims won’t fly here.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/18 12:50 by Copy19.

Only in a parallel universe is that a "good case". Just because some idiots on a jury might buy that kind of nonsense, doesn't make ANYTHING about it good or right or just. You can make the case all day that the railroad shouldn't block the crossings, and you may or may not be right about it, but at absolutely NO LEVEL does that give you a free pass to do stupid things without consequences. This is all a product of people ducking their civic duty to serve on juries and leaving that important work to the lowest common denominators among us. Would ANYBODY even try to argue a case that you should be able to go play in traffic on an interstate highway just because they built it between where you are and where you think you ought to be allowed to go?

junctiontower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only in a parallel universe is that a "good case".
> Just because some idiots on a jury might buy that
> kind of nonsense, doesn't make ANYTHING about it
> good or right or just. You can make the case all
> day that the railroad shouldn't block the
> crossings, and you may or may not be right about
> it, but at absolutely NO LEVEL does that give you
> a free pass to do stupid things without
> consequences. This is all a product of people
> ducking their civic duty to serve on juries and
> leaving that important work to the lowest common
> denominators among us. Would ANYBODY even try to
> argue a case that you should be able to go play in
> traffic on an interstate highway just because they
> built it between where you are and where you think
> you ought to be allowed to go?

I've served on enough juries to know that people who do stupid things with awful, predictable, consequences will get sympathy, and the wicked big or small company should be punished. That's one reason why big companies avoid the court room if they can.