See? See? See?

[kenw]

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/...partner=alerts

Some (ok, most) of the non-photographer railfans are absolutely frothing over this.....

[d2creative]

Idiot. Something else to make me embarrassed of my fellow Americans.

[doctahjones]

ugh.

[L Stegall]

Well, she had her camera set on macro, so she had to wait for it to get closer......

It's hard to imagine how they will get very far with this.

[Cajungaltx]

Frivolous lawsuit.

Unfortunately, stupidity isn't a crime, so they are free to walk around...

[ka5txl]

Originally Posted by Cajungaltx

Frivolous lawsuit.

Unfortunately, stupidity isn't a crime, so they are free to walk around...

and create offspring

[Tim-in-TX]

This ranks right up there with the Hot Coffee lawsuit.

[StevenGWebb]

Originally Posted by Tim-in-TX

This ranks right up there with the Hot Coffee lawsuit.

Remember that woman won. This case will probably be settled out of court for an undisclosed amont of money. My guess is the settlement will be something less than the cost to litigate and put up "No Trespassing" signs at regular intervals along the entire rail line. Its a pity that people can be stupid, then wrong, and yet be rewarded for being both.

Steven

[L Stegall]

Actually, sorry to disagree, but this really does not "rank up there" with the infamous "hot coffee" lawsuit. The actual facts of that case paint a different picture than what the headlines reported, which is not surprising, since much legal reporting leaves a lot to be desired. McDonald's deliberately brewed their coffee over 20 degrees hotter than necessary to have hot coffee. It was so hot that it would scauld people upon touch - just so they didn't have to make coffee as often. They knew that the freshly brewed coffee was so hot that it burned literally thousands of people a year - customers, employees, small children who accidentally tipped over a parent's cup of coffee and they made a calculated decision that it was cheaper to settle a few lawsuits than make coffee a little more often. The poor lady who was burned was elderly and was the passenger in a stopped vehicle. She was trying to remove the lid of the coffee cup when it turned over and scaulded her in a very sensitive place, requiring multiple surgeries/skin grafts in her inner thigh and genital area. Her medical bills were over $300,000 alone. While there are plenty of frivilous cases, that one just isn't one if them in my opinion. The jury was so angry over the management's callous disregard for their customer's safety that they hit them with punitive damages, which got taken away after the jury verdict. The award was reduced significantly and she barely covered her medical expenses.

The hazards of being on a railroad track are a bit more open and obvious and the law is definitely on the side of the railroad, so I expect they will probably fight it and fight it hard.

[Rson]

the lady won the amount that McDonalds makes off a cup of coffee in a day....some say it was because the jury hated the Mcd's lawyer and was really punishing him for being a pompus jerk.

Rson added 3 Minutes and 7 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck...7s_Restaurants

[StevenGWebb]

I don't think the RR case will make it to litigation. A settlement will most likely be reached for two reasons, 1.- It's less costly that defending aganst a civil suit. 2.- It does not require admitting fault therefore there would be no additional punitives, such as having to post signs, build barriers, etc.

At a RR crossing the train has exlusive ROW, the tracks are private property. However, regardless of how well signed, and gated the crossing or how loud and long the train's horn was blown when an accident occurrs on a grade crossing, the RR most always pays a settlement.

[toverman]

There are actually signs near me that I've been meaning to photograph (while not standing on the railroad or its right of way) that are along a stretch of tracks just north of me. I didn't notice they were added until a 5-year-old boy was killed on the tracks about two years ago (story here).

In Watauga, one of the ridiculous things is that the Union Pacific tracks there are within a "quiet zone" that prohibits engineers from blowing the horn near crossings. Guess the people who moved near the tracks in the past five years didn't see the railroad that's been there in one form or another for 150 or so years. The news story linked above mentions that when the boy was spotted on the tracks, the horn was repeatedly blown, though.

[shamrock]

Originally Posted by StevenGWebb

Remember that woman won. This case will probably be settled out of court for an undisclosed amont of money. My guess is the settlement will be something less than the cost to litigate and put up "No Trespassing" signs at regular intervals along the entire rail line. Its a pity that people can be stupid, then wrong, and yet be rewarded for being both.

Steven

Yup, that's what i expect. There will be a settlement, and the idiot will be rewarded for being an idiot, leading to yet more lawsuits in the future.

[kenw]

Originally Posted by toverman

....In Watauga, one of the ridiculous things is that the Union Pacific tracks there are within a "quiet zone" that prohibits engineers from blowing the horn near crossings. .....

All quiet zones have the provision that the engineer CAN sound the horn if he notices vehicles or pedestrians within the right-of-way, going around the gates or other actions.

[StevenGWebb]

That's the way it goes. They build an airport 40 years ago then some idiot puts houses around it 30 years later and the homeowners complain because of the noise. They should do the same thing with those houses as the "quiet zone" RR area houses. Sell them to deaf people who won't care about the noise.

Steve