Ok, what legal precedent is there for this? For example, I heard a while back that some lady in Montana got hit by a BNSF train because she was walking on the tracks - not at a grade crossing, this was somewhere in the middle of nowhere in the wilderness - was her suit successful? How about a situation where a hobo takes a ride and gets injured? Could he sue and actually win? I think it’s ridiculous that people would sue the RR if they are clearly at fault themselves, but what legal precedent have the courts handed down? Has it really gotten to the point where people can sue the RR for injuries when it was clearly their own fault and actually win?
My understanding is that yes, even someone who is trespassing may be able to successfully sue if they are injured. Usually the injured party’s claim is that there were not adequate fences, signs etc. warning of the danger.
Payouts are not up to the judge. They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury.
A landowner can be found liable for injuries to trespassers arising from hazards on the landowner’s property. It is not just confined to railroad property, and it is not just a matter of stupid people on juries. There are legal principles involved. You cannot have a booby trap in your yard, and then make the case that if anybody gets hurt; it is automatically their fault because they were trespassing in your yard. It may seem like you could make that case, but you can’t.
It seems that we are living in a very ‘Litigious’ Society and time. Good for lawyers, not so for the rest of society.[2c]
Most anyone or any company has a lawyer or lawyers or even a whole legal staff at their beck and call. I used to be employed by a medium sized trucking company (operated about 2000 power units).
Each day the mail would bring in two to three notices to sue the company, and more threatening letters to do the same. I’d bet that it has not gotten any better. Contengency Lawsuits have a pretty good record for settlement- which means the lawyer gets a third to half of the $$$$$$. That’s what lawyers do, they file suits or threats to. Settlements are sometimes made to just make someone go away (and take their lawyer with them) and move on. It is almost an accounting function, to cut down on expenses for lawyers time and energies to settlw without a court hearing. As stasted above by Butch Knouse juries can seeming award for no particular reason or guide line.
That’s really pretty sad… it ruins a lot of stuff for the rest of us! I believe in personal responsibility, and it’s really sad that people just try to shift the blame on everyone else nowadays with lawsuits!
Jury: Twelve people not smart enough to figure out a way of avoiding their civic duty.
Makes it crystal clear why they don’t want unauthorized people on their property.
It sounds like you have not tried to get out of jury duty lately…
Sounds like neither of you have any appreciation of history [the Magna Carta and the US Constitution] and what a break it was for the common man to get the civil right to a trial by a jury of his/her peers.
In many cases it never makes it to the jury - which is why it’s so lucrative to sue in the first place.
With lawyers taking cases on contingency (a percentage of the award), there is no disincentive to suing - on the odd chance your case gets thrown out of court, you’re out next to nothing.
When a company compares the cost of settling out of court to fighting the claim at trial, settling is often the cheaper solution. So they do. The “injured” gets their award, the lawyer gets his/her cut, and the defendent hopes their insurance company doesn’t jack up their rate.
Until there’s a potential penalty for filing lawsuits that are frivilous or otherwise without merit (ie, "loser pays), this trend will continue.
You can sue anybody for any reason, …actual guilt takes a back seat to the suing attorney’s ability to convince the jury that a harm justifying relief has transpired.
Since the money is not coming out of the jurists pockets, they tend to look at the sued’s ability to pay, and the aggrieved “victims” pitifulness before awarding judgment with their hearts, not their head
Ha that would be a great platform for a politician to run on - tort reform - and make it so that if someone brings a lawsuit and loses they pay for the cost of the suit. Our over-litigious society has harmed society-at-large for the ill-gotten benefit of a few.
As they say, anyone with the filing fee can file a suit, regardless of merit, unless, for instance, they have been declared a vexatious litigant (it happens). That being said, most groundless lawsuits do not make it to a jury because of something called summary adjudication or summary judgment which clears the case out early.
A couple of cases out here involving UP are good examples.
Christoff v. UPRR resulted in summary judgment dismissing the case. From the first paragraph of the appellate court opinion: “Plaintiff Steven J. Christoff appeals from summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific), in plaintiff’s action alleging he was injured by a passing train while walking across a railroad bridge. Plaintiff contends triable issues exist regarding duty to warn and duty to remedy a danger. We shall affirm the judgment.” (C047961, unpublished opinion dated 10/27/05.)
Similarly, Lindsley v. UPRR resulted in summary judgment which the court upheld, again in an unpublished opinion which began: "Plaintiff Eric Lindsley sued the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the Santa Cruz Seaside Company, and the City of Santa Cruz for personal injuries he sustained while bicycling across the San Lorenzo Trestle Bridge (Bridge) in Santa Cruz. Lindsley alleged a single cause of action against Defendants for premises liability based upon a dangerous condition of the Bridge. The trial court granted Defendants summary judgment.
"On appeal, Lindsley argues that the court erred in granting summary judgment to Seaside because Seaside owns the property where his accident occurred or exercised control over the property. He also contends there are triable issues whether the accident occurred on Seaside’s property and whether Seaside maintained or controlled the Bridge and was therefore liable for his injuries. Lindsley asserts that the court erred in granting summary judgment to the City because there were triable issues of fact whether the walkway on the B
Very well said ChuckCobleigh! If you’re on the tracks, and dumb enough not to be aware of trains, it’s nobody’s fault but your own if you get hit. And yeah, a financial penalty for bringing forth these frivolous suits would be completely in order! Oh, and another idea - possibly disbarment for the idiot lawyers that bring them up?
Is there any law or legal reason why the winning defendent in lawsuits cannot countersue for legal costs incurred because of the original lawsuit?
My guess is because then the RR would need to dispatch its lawyers to actually go to suit instead of having a summary judgement - and seeing as how most individuals wouldn’t even have like $50,000 for example to cover the legal expenses of the RR, it’s not worth it. Yeah, the RR could get a judgement, but then to get a payout from the judgement is another matter. Just not worth the time.
The question I would like to pose, and perhaps it can be answered by our resident attorney, is who constitute our peers? IOW, is it fair to have a jury of people totally composed of people who have absolutely no knowledge of railroading, or would it be more fair to have some on the jury who do?
In my case; aviation, a jury who knows nothing about airplanes would be more likely to award a verdict based on their lack of knowledge than would one with a few people who do. Seems to me the use of peremptory challenges contributes to an advantage for the complainant.
I take full responsibility for my own actions, but don’t think I would get a fair trial given the way juries are selected these days. That’s probably why the railroads settle rather than taking a chance of a large damages award from an uninformed jury.
Since we don’t have a legally recognized class system like the UK, for jury purposes our peers are any United States Citizen.
No one dislikes lawyers and what they’ve done to riding trains, going to amusement parks, and the the like, more than I do. BUT, to say that juries are full of idiots, or that “smart” people get out of jury duty, offends my sense of American civic duty. We need juries and being on one is part of the price we pay for living in America. So, man-up to it and stop ridiculing a legal defense that took centuries of sacrifice to guarantee to citizens.
That said, I agree that we could learn a lot from our British cousins by making losing parties in a lawsuit pay costs of the winning party. We could also close half the law schools in the country and stop turning out so darned many unneeded lawyers, who then look for “work” everywhere.
George Will once wrote about a small city-state in ancient Greece that had a rule I like: If any citizen proposed a law in the agora that was voted upon but not passed, he was put to death. I bet that discouraged unnecessary legislation!
Let’s not forget that it was railroads that made attorneys hated by the general public. For example, the 14th Amendment, made to help newly freed slaves, has for most of its life been used, first by railroads, to trample the rights of the small guy. Don’t believe it? Read some history concerning corporations and their lawyers.
As far as juries being “stupid,” maybe they are just swayed by the better lawyer. If you go to trial, have the better lawyer.