Comments on: Playing chicken on railroad tracks

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Wed, 10 May 2006 23:39:17 +0000

Given the frequency of children playing on railroad trestles, isn’t this basically an attractive nuisance case, similar to a backyard swimming pool? And thus shouldn’t the railroad be held to whatever standard of care applies to the homeowner, to take some level of precautions to guard against children putting themselves in harm’s way? (And perhaps the railroad did so in this case, in which case a verdict in its favor would be appropiate, but I guess that’s up to the jury).

As for the analogy of the airplane on the runway, I’m not sure that it is persuasive. I suspect that if the pilot was informed that there were two children on the runway, then the aircraft would be obliged to stop if there was time to do so.

By: RBB

RBB — Wed, 10 May 2006 13:46:14 +0000

The parents claim the “railroad should consider the ages of children and do everything possible to avoid an accident.” It sounds as if their children are incapable of reading the warning signs, etc. And if so, then shouldn’t the parents make sure their knuckleheads are under constant supervision?

And what’s this about blaming your medical woes/drug addiction on the railroad?

By: Nathan S. Lord

Nathan S. Lord — Tue, 09 May 2006 15:18:11 +0000

No one requires aircraft to “slow down” or “stop” to avoid hitting trespassers on runways–not that many, if any, are there. Police will do the task of protecting interstate highways from trespassers–the remarkably few who play on the roadways.
Let the taxpayers of the State of Washington or its subordinate agencies pay to keep rail rights of way free of children. Congress does not appropriate much money for Amtrak (compared to airline and highway subsidies and indirect subsidies Amtrak is a pauper) and none at all for Amtrak to babysit errant children.

By: wavemaker

wavemaker — Tue, 09 May 2006 13:58:33 +0000

I was all set to ridicule that wacky 9th Circuit again, but reading the extensive report, it doesn't seem beyond reason that they would have found sufficient dispute of material fact to warrant putting the case to a jury (absent, of course, what I would favor, which would be statutory immunity against trespassers).

By: nevins

nevins — Tue, 09 May 2006 12:41:59 +0000

It is a terribly sad tragedy for the girls involved. The surviving older sibling must be racked with guilt.

But playing on railroad tracks is like playing in the street, only the cars are more likely to be able to stop. Further, bringing a car to an emergency stop rarely leads to vehicle damage or substantial economic loss. If every train had to hit the emergency brakes for each of these instances where a pedestrian, car or other potential obstruction were present then they would suffer time delays, with ripple effects for neighboring trains, as well as significant wheel damage when some of the wheels lock up and develop flat spots.

If these girls had survived imagine the howling their parents would do if given a bill for the damage to the train’s wheels.