It wouldn’t surpries me either.
[(-D][(-D]
[tup]+1
Doublestack-
Thanks for those pics. A very impressive bridge, indeed! I must visit there some day.
As to the cause, anything is possible including murder and suicide, but it has been reported that a plank was missing on the walkway. With a black, creosoted walkway in the middle of the night, I can see how someone could just step into the hole and be gone. I suspect we will learn more about the missing plank.
I doubt that just one out of hundreds of planks suddenly goes missing because of aging or deterioration. This is heavy planking bolted to steel framing. And I cannot see the railroad company allowing a plank to be missing much beyond the moment they discover the defect. It would be a death trap for their emplyees as well as for trespassers.
I’m beginning to think that the “attractive nuisance” part of the law was put in by the liquor lobby in order to “protect” their customers.
In looking at a picture of the bridge, posted by doublestack, the planking is rather substantial and their is a protective pipe railing along the walkway side. I would think there is much more to come out of this investigation beside a simple “missing” timber that created an opening large enough for someone to fall through.
Like most initial reports that seem to inevitably be woefully inaccurate, I await the followup.
…Impressive photos from Doublestack’s post. I come down on the side of opinion believing it’s difficult to go along with the missing plank theory. And agree with someone’s post indicating if a missing plank did occur, it would be replaced pronto by the RR with regard to employee’s using said space in their work routine…{possibly}.
That looks like a structure built to handle the job. The arches are strengthened by all the triangles around it supporting it’s shape and the wider stance at the bottom seems to provide great side support from {wind, etc…}.
The latest info from a Stillwater newspaper is she fell from the middle of the bridge onto an island 150 ft. below:
http://www.examiner.com/a-1531638~Woman_found_dead_at_foot_of_railroad_bridge.html
Another snippet from the Stillwater Gazette claims Washington County officials are now “looking at the death” as an accident (a rather uselessly-short write-up):
There is a related link to a story in the Minneapolis Red Star Tribune that provides some background info.
Attractive nuisance has nothing to do with drunkenness. Drunkeness in the law is mainly explained by this quote from what may well be my favorite court opinion ever, Robinson v. Pioche Bayerque & Co, 5 Cal. 460 (1855) “if the defendants were at fault in leaving an uncovered hole in the sidewalk of a public street, the intoxication of the plaintiff cannot excuse such gross negligence. A drunken man is as much entitled to a safe street as a sober one, and much more in need of it.”
Attractive nuisance generally is more directed towards protecting children (seriously, the test is if it is something that would be attractive to children) - it would be directed more likely at something like an old abandoned quarry which has filled with water - there would be an affirmative duty if you were the property owner to keep people from swimming there. Perhaps a bridge might qualify - but more likely if it was in a populated area than rural and was commonly used as a short cut.
The scenario about the lost people would be based on necessity - in a case of necessity (such as being lost in the woods and following the railroad tracks in hope of finding civilization) the trespass would be allowed but they would have to pay for any damages.
Here is a link to several definitions of attractive nuisance.
http://www.answers.com/topic/attractive-nuisance
It does make the point that the principle is mostly applied to children, however, I don’t know if there is a clearly drawn line for that stipulation. So it is not clear if attractive nuisance could be applied to the 20-year-old woman in this case. However, I would think that almost any railroad trestle would qualify as an attractive nuisance, especially the one in this case with its soaring height, attractive views, handy re-assuring walkway, declining number of trains, and rural location which makes anti-trespass relatively difficult to enforce. Then add one impressive rope swing to that heady mix, and you have what surly must be an attractive nuisance. Even the river itself, with its substantial current, adds its own considerable danger to the mix.
From the photos it looks like that bridge is very sturdy.
It would only be inviting for the extreme risk takers to cross it and hang out on it.
Among the possible events related to the woman’s fall that might have happened on it are illicit drug use and sexual activities that would appeal to those extreme risk takers.
Andrew
http://www.twincities.com/ci_10170099?source=most_emailed
According to the article, the couple were just going for a walk and she fell through a six-foot long gap where a plank was missing. The real risk takers use the rope swing hanging under the bridge over the river. I’m not sure how that works if the idea is to swing out and drop into the river. That river can be a bit tough to get out of once the current gets a hold of you.
Just downstream from the Arcola Bridge was the original bridge crossing at a much lower elevation. Like ancient ruins, a line of many giant stone piers left over from the original bridge marches across the rather wide river. They stand about 30 feet high above the water.
It happened at 1am. She was a pretty gal. I know I had seen her around town but didn’t know her. County sherrifs have warned people to stay off the bridge.
Speaking of stupid, yesterday a woman here in Bradenton pulled her Toyota around a stop sign AND a flagman and into the path of a 5-miles-per-hour Seminole Gulf train. Now bloggers on the newspaper site and wondering if the flagman “was off driniking coffee somewhere…”
Sometimes I feel like I am losing touch with society…
Was the stop sign out to lunch as well?
Hypothetically, if the Arcola bridge was out-of-service for any reason, what route would the CN use to detour over for Twin Cities - Stevens Point traffic? Could they use the UP from Hudson to Chippewa Falls? Or maybe they’d run-up to Superior over the BNSF?
I was just listening to the radio and the discussion was just ending about the Arcola bridge accident - they’re officially calling it an accident.
Let me get this straight:
- This big, beautiful bridge has a nice 2’ (looks like) walkway with a pipe guard rail that should be able to keep anyone smaller than a sumo wrestler from going through it.
- The big, bad railroad simply posted a No Trespassing sign. They didn’t station an armed security guard to prevent the mentally or alcoholically challenged from walking out on the bridge.
- Somebody wasn’t smart enough to notice (in broad daylight - 911 call at 1pm) that there was a plank missing, stepped into the hole and improved the gene pool.
Pardon me if I feel that way. I was brought up to take responsibility for my own actions (even the potentially fatal ones.) I am also equipped with two fully functional eyeballs - and have frequently been in places where failing to insure the solidity of my footing would have been life-threatening if not downright suicidal.
As far as I am concerned, any lawyer who would use this event to try to extort money from the railroad should be horsewhipped.
Chuck
It was at ~1:00 AM and very dark at the time.
Can anyone answer my hypothetical question about CN’s detour route if that bridge is OOS? Could they use the UP’s Hudson - Eau Claire - Chippewa Falls trackage to bypass the Arcola bridge, or would they need to go up to Superior for Twin Cities - Stevens Point traffic?
My vote for a CN detour would be Stevens Point to Jct City, South to the CP (New Lisbon?), then upto LaCrosse and St Paul. I think that has been done before, during the WC.