That is really true. I had a close family involved in a serious car accident with a truck that involved criminal neglience and a civil trial, the trial awarded my family member $55,000 and by the time the two lawyers teams and an expert who never testified claims were settled my family member got just enough to cover the rehab expenses he occured. He got nothing for pain, lost work, etc…
FWIW, I couldn’t agree with you more.
Seems pretty cut and dried to me, we aren’t supposed to be there (on the tracks) but when we go there anyway, we (should) adopt the ultimate responsibility for our own well being. After all, it is our decision to be there, just as it should be our decision to leave.
The fact that some people seem to think they have the right to go there, and make it someone else’s fault for anything that goes wrong, just seems absurd to me.
But, absurd is the way of the world, more often than not.
SO often in these cases, the fact of any actual wrong doing is immaterial.
All that matters is the attorney’s ability to convince 12 morons that someone has suffered.
I’ve got some friends that still believe that “reality TV” is not scripted. So what can you expect?
Once again, I shall weigh in on this by espousing my standard reply to these capricious and supercilious actions:
These shenanigans are why Richard III Duke of York said what he said to John Cade in Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 2.
Idiots! People will do anything for a dollar! I really hate people like that! Stop trespassing on private poperty and use some common sense! Geez!
I blame Darwin! They need to sue him too!
There are groups out there working for legal reform, but it’s long and slow, the types of things people sue for…such as being zapped by lightning on a roof (building owner should have put warnings about it, they say). As for the railroad incident…it’s like this, if someone was able to wander into a factory, and walk through the floors, mingle among the machinery…is the factory at fault? ISn’t there something called “common sense”? I thought that once people had grown enough they learnt these things…ok, maybe we’re being too optimistic. Would you take a stroll on an Interstate if it seemed “quiet”? Apparntly, some people would!
~Ra’akone
Never overlook the potential stupidity of 12 “get a rope” zealots in the hands of a skilled solicitor.
They will prosecute their interpretation of what constitutes “evil” everytime, and feel good about doing it.
If someone were drinking and wandering on a highway would the jury think all the drivers that hit them were at fault? I think the RR’s should counter-sue for malicious prosecution…
Depends upon situational factors, and the spin put on the story.
If the driver that hit them had a history of running down pedestrians, and a smug attitude hostile to anyone who’d DARE get in his way, then i think a skillful lawyer could manipulate 12 ‘good ol boys’ to the point they were boo hoo hooing in their hankies.
“spin” is everything.
The judge should make the family pay the railroad for the following costs after blasting the family for bringing a frivelous law suit.
Court costs
Attorney fees
Deposition costs
Pay for all employees while dealing with the suit,
All travel expences
Making the family pay thousands of dollars will discourage this kind of law suit.
Wrong! Making their lawyer pay would be much more effective! The family probably don’t have the money anyway. You can’t get blood from a turnip.
Have fun
If they (the railroad) aren’t doing anything wrong, then they should have nothing to worry about [:O][:O][:O]
In theory anyway, unfortunately as we all know juries have a tendency to be far off of what makes sense.
Hmm, unfortunately in history class this year we concentrated on criminal prosecution when studying the constitution; so maybe one of our friends here in the law enforcement profession can help. Just like in a criminal case, can the defendant in a civil case waive his right to a trial by jury? I would think that a judge would be less likely to get swayed by a hot-shot lawyer than a couple average joes would; and thus make a decision based on the facts, not emotion.
LOL, I think you may have missed my playful attempt at satire here. I was poking fun at the people who generally view ‘law and order’ issues with a Salem, Massachusetts perspective. [}:)]
Ok - I waited and no one said anything, so now I have to ask - what did he say?
Mookie
Shakespeare said that the first thing we should do is “kill all the lawyers”, Mook.
Oh my! That seems a little drastic for a profession that provides us with so much humor!
Not to mention all the groundskeepers and caddys that would be out of work!
Ed[8D]
You don’'t have that?[%-)]
We do have a similar system here in the Netherlands.[:D] and we certainly don’t have those kind of lawsuits.
Marc Immeker
I think they should sue anyone remotely connected to the railroad in any way. This may increase their chances at a nice payday for the lawyer.
Oh wait, that’s what they are doing.
What a huge, steaming, pile of bull****!