Woman Struck And Killed by LIRR Train - 4/26

Clemuel wrote:168,

You definately research law better than you spell...

Palsgraf is the case. It was 1928. A guy with a box of explosives -- seriously, you can't make this up.

Here's a link to the particulars. It's worth checking out for guys who are interested in reading law:

http://www.west.net/~smith/palsgraf.htm

But yes, Carriers get little sympathy in court, even from taxpayers who ultimately have to pay the settlement. I suppose they figure they're gonna pay anyway, so they might as well give it to the little guy.

The "some idiot kid" to whom you refer was someone's son. He and they deserve better than name calling.

It's unfortunate that the tracks in that stretch of woods were not fenced. He would be here today if they had been. Now they are fenced.

Clem

A Quick Aside:

You'll get no argument from me, I'm a horrible speller; thus is the curse of the MS Word generation! For the record, I'm one of "those guys" interested in reading law; in four years I plan on sitting in class at Harvard Law reading the Palsgraf case.

Back on topic:

I concede, I was off base in my description of the Lynbrook incident. However, I don't think the RR was at fault in any way, and they should not have had to pay to put up fencing. One of the kids who witnessed the incident happens to be on the soccer team I coach and he recalled that the LIRR gave a presentation about the dangers of the tracks (the exact name of the program escapes me at the moment) at their school a year or so before. He truthfully should have known better.

But in the end the LIRR got canned.


The point is that these paper pushers and law makers, need to sopt worring about photo bans and start un curupting the crap that they already have.

in the case of that lynbrook kid, he was totally wrong, and he had 2 choices.
1) go home and get another ball
2) call the LIRR and have and have a track worker get the ball for him.

He did neither and wound up paying for it with his life, when all he had to do was get another ball.

with all to honosty, had i been the judge in this case i would have ruled that if the family wanted a fence there they they be responsible to fund the project. and that the LIRR would not be responsible for damaged sustained to the family, not should the LIRR or any railroad or business be peinalized for a tresspasses acts.

simply put. he went on the tracks for a ball. he got zaped. he lost.

i hate to be rude or nasty, but its the truth in plain sight, it hurts doesent it?

Clemuel wrote:Ah, 7285,

Life has yet to teach you some things. One of them is that the Railroad ALWAYS pays in the event of a fatality or maiming of a trespasser. Just the way the law is... If the train wasn't there, TrainGirl, Drunk, Druggie, Pothead or whomever would still be with us.

The courts feel it's the railroad's fault for being there. They are responsible. I am sure that Traingirl's next of kin was paid hansomely by Burlington. And you can bet that the film was entered into evidence to show the pain, suffering and grusome death instilled upon Traingirl.

I'm hauled into court several times a year over these things and the Railroad always pays -- usually settles out of court.

Thats life. Work to change things like this and we'll all have a better country.

Clem

I am surprised that most railroads (other than CSX) will not let such cases reach trial, because they have a pretty good chance of winning. (A while back, there was a case where the parents of a teenage girl killed when she could not have known a train was hurtling down the track, who argued that nothing worked that could have warned their daughter of the oncoming train. That case went to trial, but the jury hung.)

Most of the time, however, it is not gross negligence on the railroad's part, and thus, IMO, the railroad should countersue, albeit the chances of collecting are very slim, and thus the aim should be dismissal ahead of trial.

However, I am NOT trying to trivialize deaths at grade crossings, as just yesterday, I was snapping a photo just behind a lowered gate (at a station), and the bells failed to go off. (I notified the MTA police just after the gates went up.)

The LIRR just had another train vs. Pedestrian at Wyandanch. This occured around 5pm. I am sure it will be in Newsday tomorrow. That is three in the span of a week. It isn't even this busy around the holidays. Yesterday the MTA poilce nabbed some kids throwing rocks at the trains between Deer Park and Pineaire. I watched a MTA ESU cop climb right on top of a freight car to get a better view of the vandals. I was impressed I don't even like to do that

The MTA Police Emergency Service Unit is generally made up of good guys who like what they do and don't mind work.

They also don't seem to share contempt for Railroad employees as many of the other newer MTA police do. Some of the newer MTA Police Officers were rejected as Railroad employees and seem to hold that against the railroad men.

Clem

I am not sure if Taylor Law implications also have to do with the jealousy (railroad employees are not under it, unlike all other state employees).

Regarding the accident:
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longi ... -headlines

Not too many details here.

MTA Long Island Rail Road
Service Alert
Thursday, May 12, 2005 1:45 AM

Ronkonkoma Branch Customers:

Due to a pedestrian accident east of Wyandanch, service on the Ronkonkoma Branch is temporarily suspended east of Farmingdale.

We are in the process of establishing bus service to operate between Farmingdale and Deer Park.

The train involved in the incident, the 10:16 PM from Penn Station, scheduled to arrive Ronkonkoma at 11:38 PM, is currently operating approximately 2 hours late.