Idiots Among Us

Now, here is a Google News story that got my Attention: "Union Pacific liable for pedestrian’s injuries?"

Here is the Story:

Here is a case recently decided by the Third District Court of Appeal out of Sacramento — our district. It involves a pedestrian hit by a passing Union Pacific train. You decide whether U.P. is responsible.

U.P. Bridge
At 8:30 in the evening, Steven Christoff was walking along Roseville Road. Because the sidewalk narrowed as the road crossed Arcade Creek, Christoff decided to use the nearby Union Pacific railroad bridge to cross the creek.

The railroad bridge had a metal grid area on the side of the bridge which had a 1-foot-9-inch wide walkway. The walkway was for employees to work on the railroad, not for pedestrians. In fact, Christoff had to step over metal struts that held up the attached walkway.

There was no signage prohibiting pedestrians, but the “walkway” was clearly not meant for Roseville Road pedestrians.

There was testimony that standard chain–link fences are not effective against trespassing, and tamper–proof fencing would cost about $1 million per mile and would endanger people in the event of derailment. There was little explanation of why U.P. did not have a “no trespassing” sign other than the obvious danger presented.

50 mph
While Christoff was on the railroad bridge, a freight train approached from the opposite direction at a speed of approximately 50 mph. Under the speed limit. The engineer sounded the horn. Christoff saw the train’s lights and heard the horn, but did not take any evasive action.

Christoff said when he heard the train whistle, he waved, because when he used to live near railroad tracks the train conductors would beep the whistle and he would wave. The court noted that he had time to wave but not enough time to hold onto the railing.

As the train passed it either struck him or threw him to the ground and he was badly injured. But he lived to tell the story — and hire a lawyer.

Duty to warn
Christoff claimed that U.P. did not warn him of the dangers of walking on the narrow passageway next to the tracks on the bridge. The Court of Appeal noted that “any reasonable person would know that standing within a few feet of a high speed freight train is dangerous.” As the court said, a busy railroad track is itself a warning to anyone “possessed of ordinary intelligence” that it is not safe to walk on or near the tracks, and indicates the possibility of being struck by a passing train. Hard to argue with that.

Ruling
The Sacramento Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court: “defendant railroad was not negligent; did not have a duty to warn of open and obvious dangers on its property; it acted with reasonable care to prevent injury to trespassers and its conduct was not a legal cause of plaintiff’s injuries.” That is, U.P.’s failure to warn of the obvious danger did not cause Christoff’s injuries.

His stupidity did.

Jim Porter is an attorney with Porter· Simon, with offices in Truckee, South Lake Tahoe and Reno. He is a mediator and was the governor's appointee to the Bipartisan McPherson Commission and the California Fair Political Practices Commission. He may be reached at [email protected] or at the firm’s Web site, www.portersimon.com.

Now, come on. "Sorry Officer I did not see a NO TRESPASSING SIGN so I decided to cross the Bridge WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT supposed to be used by Pedistrians" ..... Some People.

I find it ironic that you lock any thread where someone disagrees with something you may say, even if they are right, but then post things about "idiots"...

you sound like quite the hypocrite

There are so many people who don't realize the dangers of the railroad therefore make stupid decisions such as crossing a train bridge, walk the tracks, hop on trains, and drive around crossing gates. I think the only solution is to get more cameras and show the graphic injuries and fatalities of careless decisions that people make involving the railroad. They should show these videos when kids start junior high school so they can learn early in their life.

I'm actually surprised the railroad was not held liable - it's a victory for those of us that believe in tort reform, but it's not the outcome I would have predicted. There's an old case where the CB&Q required their employees (in galesburg or eola I think) to lock the turntable with a $5 padlock whenever the yard shut down for a night or weekend. One day, someone forgot, a local kid started messing with the turntable, and messed himself up good. The court held against the CB&Q, saying since all it takes is a $5 lock to avoid a huge injury, the CB&Q was liable. That was kind of a landmark case for liability like these situations. Also, the recent holding aganst NS and Amtrak, where the scheissekopfs climbed a covered hopper and stood up, exposing themselves to the 11000 volts in the catenary on the NEC. The court held against NS and Amtrak because it felt there should be a sign on every freight car used on NEC (any freight car in interchange service, in other words).

Stupid people p*ss me off.

I was ready to write Lawyer-1 vs Commons Sense-0. But
this time common sense prevailed.

Hypothetically, why should a RR spend any money on a fence
signs etc, when most people know that walking/trespassing on the RR
is dangerous? Ironically, just to walk in the middle of a busy
street carries the same risks, but muncipalites and state DOT's
don't line every sidewalk with signs and fences warning of not to
walk into traffic because again most people know it is dangerous
to walk in traffic!

Yet, we will time and again see these stoooopid lawsuits over
such issues.

Tadman wrote:Also, the recent holding aganst NS and Amtrak, where the scheissekopfs climbed a covered hopper and stood up, exposing themselves to the 11000 volts in the catenary on the NEC. The court held against NS and Amtrak because it felt there should be a sign on every freight car used on NEC (any freight car in interchange service, in other words).

Hate to agree with a lawyer or a scheissekopf, but they had a point... it's been the rule (not the law, a rule) for many years (like, 30 at least) on British railroads that any ladder or step giving access to roof level on any locomotive or car must be placarded with a 'caution' sign and the 'lightning' symbol. The idea is as much to remind railroaders to stop and think - 'am I or am I not working on a track with catenary above?' - as it is to CYA against trespassers.

Granted, there's proportionately more electrified track in the UK...

Mike

I have to disagree.

1) Do not enter other folks private property without permission, PERIOD.

2) My mother taught me: Don't play with electrical outlets or exposed wires. PERIOD.

3) My mother also taught me: If you are more than 1 body height above the ground, bad things can happen. Think before you climb.

Now, as to Mr Tadman's post, I have little sympathy for the CB&Q in that case. When you forget to secure something per your business practices, you're the one lacking in common sense.

John Perkowski

John, I totally agree. I am glad UP did not have to pay for the idiots injuries when the idiot is at fault.

I am not a real railroader, just a kid, but let me tell you when it comes to trains, I'd rather cut off my leg or shoot myself than go onto railroad property, such as a bridge or a yard, just to get home quicker. I'll take the long way thank you...... and yes, even if its raining.

COMMON SENCE SAYS: "If its chain-linked off, do not try to cross"

Just a thought. Instead of shooting yourself, or hacking off body parts, why not just be smart, and stay off the property of anyone, who hasn't invited you onto it? Railroads, factories, mills, airports, etc., are private property. It's not that hard to understand, even though it's impossible to keep people away. It's always nice to see some court denying payments, or awards, to the folks who have done damage to themselves. It's also very, very rare.

Actually the standard on UP is for signs on either side of the bridge, both sides of the rail. Of course nothing stops some miscreant from taking said signs for his railroad collection.

Actually, unless one has grown up around the tracks (like me, I grew up right by UP North Yard - SLC), or has spend a lot ot time with the railroad up close (like fans), he is likely to be a babe in the woods around rail facilities. There's not much which can be done about this.

In addition to the cross-bucks at x-ings, the RR should place signs with a skull and cross-bones up.

My personal fav. trespasser(s) has been a family of 6-7 near Government Crossing at the top of the climb out of Ogden to Morgan, Utah. Double main-line with two nice steel trestles over over a river on a blind curve. Grandma, Grandpa, Mom and Dad with the little ones between the rails on the other trestle waving to us as we stroll on by. You would think Grandma would have cleared everyone out, but she was the one doing the biggest amount of waving!

Sounds kinda funny..... LOL maybe they wanted to die (kinda cruel thought) and were sadly waving that you had gone by on the other track...... ok, I am a bad guy for thinking that but..... you never know.