Yesterday, the Calif. District Court of Appeal in Sacramento handed down a decision in a case involving UP. Some quotes from the decision:
Plaintiff [dummy’s name deleted by me] 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.
…plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that…he was injured by a passing Union Pacific train while he walked on a “pedestrian walkway” adjacent to train tracks on a railroad bridge that crosses over Arcade Creek parallel to Roseville Road. The air blast and suction from the passing train knocked plaintiff down and caused injuries. Plaintiff alleged defendant was aware that air blasts and suction from trains posed a danger to pedestrians on the pedestrian walkways, which was not readily apparent to persons unfamiliar with being in close proximity to moving trains. Defendant [UPRR] owed a duty to remove the danger or post warnings, and defendant breached the duty by failing to remove the danger, failing to post warnings, and negligently operating a train.
Now for the good part:
As a general rule, an owner or possessor of land owes no duty to warn of obvious dangers on the property. (Reyes v. Kosha, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 461; Garner v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co. (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 720, 728.) As noted by defendant [UPRR], the presence of railroad tracks is a warning of an open and obvious danger. “A railroad track upon which trains are constantly run is itself a warning to any person who has reached years of discretion, and who is possessed of ordinary intelligence, that it is not safe to walk upon it, or near enough to it to be struck by a passing train . . . .” (Holmes v. South Pac. Coast Ry. Co. (1893) 97 C
I concur that it is indeed wasteful to tie up the Court and its officers for something like this. It’s also extremely gratifying to learn that every now 'n then common sense prevails.
This post is excellent! Unfortunately we are always going to have dummies who should know better than to walk down railroad tracks or otherwise tresspass on railroad property, who if they get hurt, will turn around and want to file a lawsuit against the railroad owning the property where they got hurt.
Yesterday, the Calif. District Court of Appeal in Sacramento handed down a decision in a case involving UP. Some quotes from the decision:
Plaintiff [dummy’s name deleted by me] 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.
…plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that…he was injured by a passing Union Pacific train while he walked on a “pedestrian walkway” adjacent to train tracks on a railroad bridge that crosses over Arcade Creek parallel to Roseville Road. The air blast and suction from the passing train knocked plaintiff down and caused injuries. Plaintiff alleged defendant was aware that air blasts and suction from trains posed a danger to pedestrians on the pedestrian walkways, which was not readily apparent to persons unfamiliar with being in close proximity to moving trains. Defendant [UPRR] owed a duty to remove the danger or post warnings, and defendant breached the duty by failing to remove the danger, failing to post warnings, and negligently operating a train.
Now for the good part:
As a general rule, an owner or possessor of land owes no duty to warn of obvious dangers on the property. (Reyes v. Kosha, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 461; Garner v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co. (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 720, 728.) As noted by defendant [UPRR], the presence of railroad tracks is a warning of an open and obvious danger. “A railroad track upon which trains are constantly run is itself a warning to any person who has reached years of discretion, and who is possessed of ordinary intelligence, that it is not safe to walk upon it, or near enough to it to be struck by a passing t
Even better. For a few days, you can download the opinion. Since it is non-published, there is no citation for it, per se. It is case number C047961 in the Court of Appeal for the Third District of California.
Some of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony is just priceless, at least what the court quoted in the opinion.
For some reason, though, the picture in my mind is Walter Matthau in The Fortune Cookie from about 1966 or so, a wonderful movie and I think his first with Jack Lemmon. BTW, Matthau won the best supporting actor Oscar for his portrayal of Jack Lemmon’s shyster lawyer brother-in-law in the movie.
Sadly this case sort of reminds me of the lady that sued McDonald’s because she spilled hot coffee (spelling) down her lap in the car. Now, comon sence would tell her that it was her falt for driving with hot coffee in her lap, thus it’s her falt for spilling it. Some people just don’t want to talk responceiblity for their own actions, they’d rather find an accident that they caused to be their time to make a quick buck.
The person who walked along the side of the UP trackage on the pedestrian walkway should of taken nessecary precautions to being around railroad property. Some people never learn.
When they say “Pedestrian Walkway” do they mean “ties”? 'cause they sound pretty unintelligent to me!
These people should be dragged into the street and showed the real criminals. Then shot.
Matthew
This is is one of the main reasons why I want to go into law, to finally shut up all the stupid people, but with big intelligent and roundabout ways of saying “duh,” instead of public stonings…it’s much funnier to see people confused by strategically worded insults than them sitting in the street bloodied and dying…
How in the world can anyone take these topics seriously with all of the nonsense being put out by those who have more graphics than substance? What is with you guys - running up the numbers count seems to be all you are here for.
Talk about wasting resources. Kalmbach pays for this service and I seriously doubt that the intent was to let it go the way some seem to think it should.
Now to the subject matter: Thank you for taking the time to provide us with the information. As someone alluded to earlier, common sense finally prevailed in the court system.
The “pedestrian walkway” was a narrow (less then three foot) walkway along one side of the bridge installed for the train crew to use in cases where the engine had stopped on the bridge. The plaintiff had been walking on the sidewalk of Roseville Rd and when he came to the Arcade Creek bridge, the “sidewalk” narrowed on the bridge and he decided that it would be safer to cross using the RR bridge catwalk. He was on that caltwalk when a UP freight appeared. The engineer leaned on the horn when the engine was about 200 feet away (train speed was 50mph), although the plaintiff claimed that he first saw the engine when it was 20-30 feet away.
From a deposition of the plaintiff:
Q. Certainly you knew that it was a hazard to be on the railroad bridge if there was a train, correct?
A. Yes.
The whole thing sort of refutes Darwin, IMHO, in that he actually survived to tell about it.
Yeah, but the “expert at everything, proficient at none” folks got paid for their efforts. Care to bet on if UP’s law department ever gets re-imbursed?[}:)][}:)][}:)]
Now had the case been heard in Douglas County, CO (Castle Rock) [zzz][zzz][zzz]
Whether or not the “victim” was a fool, there is always an ambulance chasing lawyer ready to take the case in the hope of squeezing some cash out the company at “fault.”
I wholeheartedly agree with gacuster on this point. Every profession has it’s share of “bad apples”, and it’s certainly no exception with the legal profession.
The “McDonalds coffee” case is far more complex and interesting than this. For one instance, she was a passenger in the car, not driving. For another, she was not holding the coffee cup in her lap, she was trying to open the plastic lid a little so she could drink it. And McDonalds admitted to brewing their coffee at temperatures far above what is accepted practice in the food industry.
I read a good discussion on the Web on these issues. The details of the case were published in it. I don’t remember the URL but a Google search ought to find it easily.
Societies need ambulances,and lawyers are like dogs, they have to chase something. Their problem is what to do once they have caught it. They do what they do–Sue. The dog relieves itself on the wheel…A modicum of victory for both.