Eastern Railroad Discussion > Judge voids decision against NS

A Pennsylvania appeals court has agreed to sever Norfolk Southern from a judgement for nearly $3 million. A runaway from a state facility was struck while standing in the gauge.

The railroad introduced camera evidence that the crew sounded the horn and was not reckless. A jury had found otherwise. The judge and appeals court disagreed and reversed the decision.

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2021/03/pa-court-backs-voiding-of-jurys-29m-award-to-family-of-runaway-teen-who-was-killed-by-a-train.html

Posted from Android

i don't understand how a jury finds the railroad was reckless.  But I also don't unerstand how a judge just completely reverses the jury.  but I think he did right.

If I interpret the article correctly, NS was dismissed from the lawsuit before the $2.9 mill decision was awarded from the nearby childrens home from where the juvenile escaped.  The appeals court ruled that the judge correctly excluded NS as a defendant, and also ruled that the childrens' home was not negiligent.

Either way, I am glad the NS was not found to be negligent in this case.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/21 16:49 by kbmiflyer.

I have read of other cases in California and elsewhere in which a judge, or an appeals court, has overturned a jury verdict on the basis that the verdict did not fit with the evidence presented.  In this case the judge looked at the video from the locomotive and found conclusive evidence that the crew did everything possible to avoid the accident and that the jurying got it wrong.

Why didn't the train just stop? Didn't his emergency brake work? GRRRR!

Out 

As much as the crews complain about cameras they are proving their worth.  And like a dispatcher's tape recording, it can work for you just as well as it can work against you.

John Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have read of other cases in California and
> elsewhere in which a judge, or an appeals court,
> has overturned a jury verdict on the basis that
> the verdict did not fit with the evidence
> presented.  In this case the judge looked at the
> video from the locomotive and found conclusive
> evidence that the crew did everything possible to
> avoid the accident and that the jurying got it
> wrong.

If only elections could work that way...

Tominde Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i don't understand how a jury finds the railroad
> was reckless.  But I also don't unerstand how a
> judge just completely reverses the jury.  but I
> think he did right.

I really hope I never end up in front of a jury... the 'majority' are perfectly capable of making bad decisions.

callum_out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why didn't the train just stop? Didn't his
> emergency brake work? GRRRR!
>
> Out 


1.) Trains don't stop on a dime..??!!

2.) Some people have difficulty with the concept of what a train horn is FOR....

Posted from Android

Sarcasm walks in quicksand on TO doesn’t it...

Posted from iPhone

Juniata Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sarcasm walks in quicksand on TO doesn’t it...
>

Sarcasm, what sarcasm?! Aww, missed it again.. ;-)

exhaustED Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tominde Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > i don't understand how a jury finds the
> railroad
> > was reckless.  But I also don't unerstand how
> a
> > judge just completely reverses the jury.  but
> I
> > think he did right.
>
> I really hope I never end up in front of a jury...
> the 'majority' are perfectly capable of making bad
> decisions.

I've always been part of the "shoot the lawyers" crowd, but I think we need to start shooting the jurrors too.  The law gurantees us trial by a jury of our peers, but I'll stake my life savings that most of these jurors are  too stupid to be my peers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/21 18:44 by junctiontower.

Judges--either the trial judge or the appellate judges, if it comes to that--have always had the obligation to make sure that there is evidence that permits a jury to find for the plaintiff.  That doesn't mean that the judge would find for the plaintiff, only that there's some evidence that would let a rational jury find for the plaintiff.  If there isn't sufficient evidence (the rules about what is sufficient vary a bit from state to state and between the state and federal systems) then the judge will grant a directed verdict for the defendant.  Sometimes a judge will deny a motion for a directed verdict in the hope that the jury will find for the defendant itself.  If it doesn't, the defendant can essentially renew the motion after the verdict and a judge can then overturn the verdict.  This procedure essentially permits the jury--which, whatever you think about specific instances, is meant to represent the people at large, not a professional elite--to decide about the facts without letting the jury entirely ignore them.  This is all standard stuff that law students learn in their first year of law school.  There are also rules that apply when the evidence is so overwhelming that no reasonable jury could find for the defendant, but they don't come into play very often.

junctiontower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> exhaustED Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> I really hope I never end up in front of a
> jury... the 'majority' are perfectly capable of making
> bad decisions.

> I've always been part of the "shoot the lawyers"
> crowd, but I think we need to start shooting the
> jurrors too.  The law gurantees us trial by a
> jury of our peers, but I'll stake my life savings
> that most of these jurors are to too stupid to be
> my peers.

That made me laugh out loud! :-D

If you have ever been in the jury selection process, you would understand. I was in a jury where two of us disagreed with the other jurors. Man, were we treated badly, and the judge kept sending us back for deliberation... The two of us had made up our minds. The jury foreman slammed her fist on the table and said the defendant was just a creep anyway and the jurors just wanted to go home. IIRC, the back and forth was just btw the two of us and the jury foreman. The other jurors didn't want to get involved. And a prosecutor that was only interested in furthering her career didn't help. I have to live with my conscience.  We "hung" the jury. I don't know if there was a retrial. Perhaps there was another trial and they found some other sheep.


Victor A. Baird
http://www.erstwhilepublications.com

Tominde Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i don't understand how a jury finds the railroad
> was reckless.  But I also don't understand how a
> judge just completely reverses the jury.  but I
> think he did right.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/21 15:32 by wabash2800.

Twelve Angry Men, The Ox-bow Incident

The definitive jury / mob movies

Posted from Android

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you have ever been in the jury selection
> process, you would understand. I was in a jury
> where two of us disagreed with the other jurors.
> Man, were we treated badly, and the judge kept
> sending us back for deliberation... The two of us
> had made up our minds. The jury foreman slammed
> her fist on the table and said the defendant was
> just a creep anyway and the jurors just wanted to
> go home. IIRC, the back and forth was just btw the
> two of us and the jury foreman. The other jurors
> didn't want to get involved. And a prosecutor that
> was only interested in furthering her career
> didn't help. I have to live with my conscience. 
> We "hung" the jury. I don't know if there was a
> retrial. Perhaps there was another trial and they
> found some other sheep.
>
>
> Victor A. Baird
> http://www.erstwhilepublications.com
>
> Tominde Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > i don't understand how a jury finds the
> railroad
> > was reckless.  But I also don't understand how
> a
> > judge just completely reverses the jury.  but
> I
> > think he did right.

Regardless of how it may have ended up, you did the right thing.  Reasonable doubt shouldn't just be empty words, and I say that as a guy that is ALWAYS ready to have more prisons built if it keeps criminals off my streets.

junctiontower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jurrors too.  The law gurantees us trial by a
> jury of our peers, but I'll stake my life savings
> that most of these jurors are  too stupid to be
> my peers.

The US desperately needs to take education seriously.  It isn't an expense, it's an investment in the future of the nation.

That means at the national level, not just the local district.

Civics education would be nice, too. There are responsibilities tied to voting and ownership of weapons, etc.

Posted from Android

jello Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> junctiontower Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > jurors too.  The law guarantees us trial by a
> > jury of our peers, but I'll stake my life
> savings
> > that most of these jurors are  too stupid to
> be
> > my peers.
>
> The US desperately needs to take education
> seriously.  It isn't an expense, it's an
> investment in the future of the nation.
>
> That means at the national level, not just the
> local district.

The problem is that to most of the adults involved in the education process, taking it serious means to throw huge sums of money at the problem, not demand and achieve better results.  Money and education have relatively little to do with each other.  Abraham Lincoln was possibly the smartest person this country has ever produced.  How much money did we spend to educate him?  My grandfather left school after the 8th grade in 1924, and I would take his knowledge over many of the college graduates I have met.  He owned his own business for 25 years and did the books and paid the bills without so much as an adding machine. It has become a cliche, but when they used to talk about the three R's they were right.  Those three things are the building blocks that make all other learning possible, yet we keep promoting kids that can barely read, can't write anything without a keyboard, can't construct an intelligible sentence, and can't do 4th grade math without a calculator.  I asked a sixth grader recently about multiplication tables and he had no idea what I was even talking about.  Of course it doesn't matter, because as long as adding 2+2 and getting 37 gives you a sufficient amount of self esteem, the correct answer REALLY doesn't matter.  It's just someone's opinion of what is correct anyway, and why should their opinion matter more than yours?  We spend too much time pushing social consciousness instead of science and life skills.  We have taken away things like industrial arts and home economics and most everything else that teaches kids skills they willa ctually NEED in life.  My friend's daughter recently went from a parochial junior high school to a public high school, and told us that the freshman in the public school (not a bad one either) were doing the same work she had done as a 6th and 7th grader.  Some of these school systems have as many administrators and other support personnel than they have teachers.  The high school I graduated from has money for state of the art AstroTurf for the football field, but no money to keep a shop teacher on the payroll.  The teacher's unions throw their weight around Washington like a 800 pound gorilla, and half the parents treat school as a free baby sitter for their children.  Good luck straightening that mess out.