If I understand some of the details of this story correctly, this woman took her mid-day run every day over these same tracks…so I assume she must have seen at least an occasional train during her run…Soooooo, she should have known very well that trains run on those tracks and should have been much more careful. Maybe she’s a “valley girl”, a.k.a. a clueless putz.
While we are on the subject…
I was downtown LaGrange yesterday, doing some errands. The business I was at is about 100 feet or so from the railroad crossing in down town LaGrange. While I was walking to the business, a train was approaching. Curious to see what it was, I paused to watch. A man on a bicycle had just stopped at the lowered pedestrian gate, and with the train sounding it’s horn, this guy decided to cross in front of the train. I swear, I thought I was going to see a tragedy unfold right there in front of me. The guy didn’t get hit, but it was kind of close. (The train was moving slower than the usual 40-50mph.) I also was not close enough to see if he was listening to an Ipod type device.
I remain absolutely convinced that, no matter what, some people will never get it, ever.
Well, she certainly came across as shallow, vain and stupid in the interview. Maybe that’s why the court took her seriously - they figured anything this dimwitted needs all the help it can get…
Mark.
And this is precisely the reason I hate level crossings. You cannot trust the idiots who use them to do the right thing. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had people do this to me when I’m at work. I’ve even had some drunken wanker* cross to the wrong side of the road and drive around the barriers in an attempt to beat me across the crossing.
He failed…
Mark.
EDIT: What the hell is a slacker?
You can subtract one more from the “personal accountability and responsibility” list.
Typical response, sue the railroad for your lack of judgement.
Better yet, you can subtract 3 more from the P A & R list because the reporter and anchorwoman seemed to be leaning towards her side.
I can’t believe neither brought up that she was trespassing or wearing an I-pod.
And he calls it an epidemic, and epidemic of what, stupidity ?!?!?
Please God let there be an all railfan jury.
She doesn’t need to HAVE the resources. All she needs is a Willie Whiplash willing to take the case on a percentage. Even if she loses, she’s not out a dime.
The above paragraph is WHY we have so many of these kind of lawsuits.
“He Tried”
“To Cross”
“As fast train neared”
“Death didn’t draft him”
“He Volenteered”
“Burma Shave”
OMG!
Lets see…
jogging on tracks = STUPID
jogging on tracks with Ipod =STUPID
not looking each way crossing while trespassing = STUPID
This person is a retard, period! Ipod wearing joggers (and pedestrians) tend to be serious idiots when it comes to not paying attention to their surroundings, this stupid idiot is LUCKY to be alive, but “Oh, boohoohhooo its the RAILROADS fault I tresspassed, didnt look to makes sure it was safe before I crossed illegally and of course I HAD to have my Ipod set on 11 so I could tune out all those negative vibes that spoil my groove like sirens and TRAIN HORNS”
NO Sympathy, and I would say so right to her face…buck up lady and accept your responsibility.
But the railroad doesn’t have unlimited resources either. It probably has more than she does, but its resources are not unlimited. To the extent it has to waste money making lawyers wealthy (That’s what our legal system is really about, isn’t it. Making lawyers wealthy.), it can’t do other, more useful things.
And look at the flip side of your thoughts. What if the railroad was at fault? (Aparently not applicable in this case, but it does happen.) Then the injured person should collect, but you say they can’t under the present system.
As I said before, our courts are not about justice.
From what I’ve heard, the way to fight this is to put up a halfhearted defense then appeal if the jury is swayed by the blonde’s crying. Appeals judges are far less inclined to give someone money who doesn’t deserve it.
YES! - Our legal (and political) systems are so screwed up in the country and I bet you could find an ambulance chasing attorney to sue someone just because they exist and are breathing on the planet for some dumb charge. Its awful to read about all these stupid idiots across the country that trespass or walk, drive, ride, etc. into or across the path of an oncoming train but they shouldnt be able to sue for their stupidity…especially those that drive around the gates as most of them get what they deserve for being so stupid.
Could someone send the thread to the TV Station so the station managers asst cld see?
My regrets to the lady, I am unsure how to phrase this but here goes.
-
I can only say I would question the Attorney representing her about not talking to her about this 1st .
-
The Judge should not allow this to go forward.
-
FEC is base out of St Augustine if I remember correctly. The TV station is out of Boca Raton as was the accident. Who did the TV station try to contact?
Rgds IGN
Don’t know much on legal terms but trespassers on rr property who are caught and are responsible for delaying a train can be subject to federal fines under the Interstate Commerence act for delaying freight interstate commerence. I believe to start out with, one can be slapped w/a felony but don’t quote me on that. This lady down there is not going to handed a freebie over the issue at hand.
Exactly!
After every other stupid thing she did wrong she could have still saved her self from injury if it had not been for the Ipod, which she obviously had the volume too loud to hear a train (if that’s even possible). [banghead]
you think our laws a bad. A friend was in 'Saudia arabia and hired a taxi that hit some one. he had to leave that country because wreck wouldn’t have happened if he had not hired taxi. Told same in all mid eastern countrys.
…BUT the 1st trial would have had to have something wrong that can be documented or proven wrong (usually a procedure issue) before you get to talk appeal.
As a long time broadcaster I can’t believe the TV station tried to contact anyone at the railroad. Too often today, especially in TV, looks are more important than intellegence or journalistic talent and ability. Those I know doing radio, TV and newspaper reporting today tell me they are handed stories by news directors or assignment editors and these stories are public relations handouts and press releases. They sometimes monitor police and fire radios but rarely, if ever, are routine police and political calls made and more rarely do news reporters and thier editors know who to contact in local major industires, businesses, and retail establishments. Neither the viewer (or radio listener) or reader nor the paying advertiser receive any quality product. So, I really don’t expect this TV station made any phone calls but rather got a hand out by the blonde’s lawyer and sent a reporter and crew out to stand near the railroad tracks.
Guys,
Many of you are assuming FEC will lose. (Wish I had the material with me now) but I’ve read where there have been a number of cases in the past few years in which railroad and transit companies have been coming out on the winning end on stupid cases like this. However, the local media don’t make it front page news when the transportation company wins. Usually relegated to a short paragraph on page 2. It’s when the transportation company loses that a lot of attention is focused on the case.
You’re forgetting that there are still American citizens that hate the entitlement mentality that do get to serve on juries. Apparently a smart move for these people is “not letting on” that they think that way. Instead the game is not to lie, but to offer bare minimum answers when being questioned by the plaintiff’s lawyer(s) when reporting for jury duty.
Not quite sure where you’re going with this, but, for the record, FEC is based out of Jacksonville (Duval Co.) and the Channel 10 is out of Miami (Dade Co.). The accident occurred in Pompano Beach (Broward Co.). FEC used to be headquartered in St. Augustine, but hasn’t been for some time now.
I agree that based on what was reported as fact regarding the ipod, trespassing, etc… this case should be thrown out faster than the discards from last nights shrimp boil dinner. There’s no way this would’ve happened if she had just excercised due dilligence on her part by looking out for trains before she attempted to cross the tracks.
I’m still not sure if she was even cited for trespassing; she certainly should’ve been. Maybe that would buttress FEC’s position in this matter. I’ve seen cases in the past where automobile accident victims laying in hospital beds were handed traffic citations for being at-fault, literally adding insult to injury. Miss Risse should not have been treated any differently.
Despite the carelessness, negligence, distraction of the I-pod, and trespass, it appears that the lawyers will make a case that the railroad is partly responsible because they provided a hazardous condition, and did not barricade or protect it in a way that would prevent the public from being injured by it. I am not a legal expert, but I doubt that the fact that the railroad is private property would fully exonerate the railroad from the charge of failing to protect the public from a hazard.
A hazard on private property unbeknownst to the owner may nevertheless be a liability to the owner if the public is likely to be injured by it. I suspect the hazard may be a greater liability to the owner if he or she does know about it.
This crossing point, although illegal, was apparently routinely used, thus raising the point that railroad was probably aware of that public usage, and thus was aware of the hazard to the public. While they did have the ROW posted, they apparently did not post signage to warn pedestrian traffic approaching this crossing point from both directions.
I have no idea which side will prevail, but I doubt that the case will be thrown out because it has no grounds.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2035578/posts
Quote from the above link:
And so, with the help of Fort Lauderdale attorneys Stephen L. Malove and Scott L. Henratty, she has filed a negligence lawsuit against FEC, the train’s engineer and its brakeman.
The eight-count complaint states that the company should have known that pedestrians routinely cross the tracks at that location but did not post ‘‘No Trespassing’’ signs on the west side of the tracks.