Passed Without Comment

Mr. Spatcher, I would be delighted to review the link you submitted from Columbia College's (Chicago) page, but it appears to be "broken".

The article is right here: http://www.columbiachronicle.com/back/1 ... 8/vp1.html

The article doesn't really "expose" anything new. Just reiterates how the Bartons and their lawyers took Metra/C&NW for a ride in the court room.

Cute. But I have the court decision on my side. So rubber glue stick to you (trying to speak my opponent's argument level).

justalurker66 wrote:Cute. But I have the court decision on my side. So rubber glue stick to you (trying to speak my opponent's argument level).

Nice. We all know that courts are perfect and they never make mistakes. Just ask one of the 10,000 people who are wrongfully convicted every year. As for the cheap shot, well I let that one go, just to show there is at least some maturity on this thread.


http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm

It would help if you didn't include false statements in your tirade (a few posts back) ... but why let the truth stand in the way of a good argument?

justalurker66 wrote:It would help if you didn't include false statements in your tirade (a few posts back) ... but why let the truth stand in the way of a good argument?

And what statements would those be?

Court decision are not by divine mandate, they are exactly the opposite. Court decision are made by human beings, with emotions, biases, and troubles of their own. This makes it hard to predict the outcome of a court case where one individual sues another. Lawyers are known to hire firms that make power point presentation more visually appealing to keep the jury's attention or sway their feelings. There are famous stories about cigar smoking to distract jurors in days past. When a court case exists between a large corporation with lots of money and a person that lost their legs on that corporation's railroad, there is a significant emotional imbalance. The company is large, faceless, remorseless, and rich. The person is mortal, hurt, and sad. Jurors sympathize with the injured person many times. To insist that one "has a court decision" on their side to prove a viewpoint in this article does not validate a viewpoint, it merely illustrates the conclusion of 12 of your peers that are easily swayed by their biases and emotions.

It's worth noting that the railroads were the driving force behind the development of tort law, otherwise known as personal injury law. I can still name you quite a few cases from memory that we learned in the first year of law school - Wabash v. Pokora, where a person was killed by a train at multiple-track crossings (uh, stop look and listen?); the case against CB&Q where a man lost his foot while playing on a turntable after hours (uh, no trespassing?); Palsgraf v. Long Island, where Mrs. Palsgraf was injured by falling equipment after another passenger's fireworks went off; and the NYCTA banana peel cases, where the courts drew a distinction between when a slippery banana peel is the fault of the railroad and when it's not (it usually is). Point is, there are quite a few cases where juries ruled in favor of the passenger regardless of the railroad's actions. In the Palsgraf case, LIRR didn't set off the fireworks, they belonged to another passenger!

This case is not the first and not the last case where a person sustains a unfortunate injury and the railroad is help responsible regardless of the foolishness of the injured.

I had the privilege to "be there' this past Friday evening:

http://www.cso.org/main.taf?p=3,11,6,1&EventID=3001

Note the description of the instrument Mr. Bell used to perform the Bruch.

Confronted with the same or similar parameters as was the Plantiff, "would have he let it go"?

I don't care if I had the entry codes to Ft. Knox, my life isn't worth it. Doors close on my bag, bag goes with train while I stay on platform. It's not like you couldn't call the railroad and tell them your $1m violin is on the train, and/or file an insurance claim. Worst case, some delinquent filches the violin and fences it to fund a hit of some feelgoods. The violin winds up in a pawnshop for $100, and the insurance investigator finds it anyway.

Again another person ASSUMING that all she had to do was let go. That she was stupid enough to make an effort to hold on while being dragged down the platform. Refusing to read or understand the court documents? Her claim was she was trapped, The jury believed her. But I guess they were all morons because they don't agree with you. Presented with all the facts in a courtroom a decision was made. But to hell with the courts. You know better!

I suppose next you'll tell us that she instructed the crew not to check the doors so she could get the cash?

Oh well, back to the comments ... don't let the facts stand in the way of a good rant.

justalurker66 wrote:Again another person ASSUMING that all she had to do was let go. That she was stupid enough to make an effort to hold on while being dragged down the platform. Refusing to read or understand the court documents? Her claim was she was trapped, The jury believed her. But I guess they were all morons because they don't agree with you. Presented with all the facts in a courtroom a decision was made. But to hell with the courts. You know better!

I suppose next you'll tell us that she instructed the crew not to check the doors so she could get the cash?

Oh well, back to the comments ... don't let the facts stand in the way of a good rant.

Ah yes the court documents....... The court documents were it was testified, and shown thru mock ups and reenactments that Barton could free herself from the doors if in fact she did not care about losing her violin? The court documents that show that he doctor that treated Barton at the hospital testified that Barton told him that she went back to get her violin? The court documents where it was shown that nobody, INCLUDING RACHEL disagreed with the fact that Rachel physically could have removed the strap from her shoulder before the train began to move. The court documents were Rachel, in her testimony said that not only could she physically have removed the strap from her arm at the time before the train began moving, but the fact that she DID remove the strap from her arm after the train had begain to move, and she was being dragged along the ballest on her tailbone! Your right, you should really read the court documents.

I am glad to see that the facts of this case did not get in way of your not so good rant.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/sug ... 062606.pdf

Read ALL of the court documents ... not just the parts you like ... and understand that such a contrived setup "proving" that she "might" have been able to free herself was developed over a lot more time than she had to figure out first that she was trapped and second that her first thought of how to free herself (pull open the doors) was not going to work. It is insulting to suggest that she willingly decided to be dragged down that platform.

Sure, let her watch a Mythbusters episode where they have condensed a few days of work into 22 minutes (interspersed with a second storyline and commercials to create an hour show) and perhaps she would be better trained for the future. But I bet even the Mythbusters would be maimed if they were given only a few seconds to figure out the escape with zero warning that there would be an emergency.

Those who had the responsibility and training for safely operating the train neglected their duties. Look to them and assign the most blame. The court did.

I listened in its entirety during WFMT-98.7's 11AM hour today a recording of Josef Joachim Violin Concerto #2 performed by - guess who?

My desire to be exposed to a work I had not previously heard "trumped' my previous statement that when her works are aired, the dial goes click.

I will acknowledge that the artist is "accomplished".

So apparently the impairment did not stop her from performing? Interesting.

Perhaps every time she performs she should give some of the money back?

justalurker66 wrote:So apparently the impairment did not stop her from performing?

It appears that she sits to perform in a straight chair. While I cannot locate any You Tube videos to establish such, I think you will find that while her litigation moved forth, she performed from a wheelchair.

FWIW, Perlman, who has been disabled since birth, walks on to stage to perform although he does sit while doing so.

Finally, I guess I should note that concert protocol customarily calls for a violin soloist to stand while performing.