Comments on: Trespass atop rail car, win $24 million

By: Update: Trespass atop rail car, win $24 million

Update: Trespass atop rail car, win $24 million — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:38:27 +0000

[…] our item of Oct. 2006: a Pennsylvania federal judge has declined to set aside a $24 million jury verdict “against […]

By: Ted

Ted — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:47:47 +0000

I looked up the federal docket for #: 2:04-cv-00955-LS (E.D. Pa.). The case was originally in Easton, Pennsylvania before Judge Van Antwerpen, and was randomly reassigned to Philadelphia when Judge Van Antwerpen was confirmed to the Third Circuit. But the new judge, Judge Stengel sits in Reading, Pennsylvania. It’s not clear from the record how the trial ended up in Philadelphia; it may have been for the convenience of the defendants.

NB that Birdwell received punitive damages in a 10:1 ratio from compensatories.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:34:15 +0000

“everything is the fault of someone else, anyone else.”

No, not ANYONE else… anyone else WITH MONEY.

By: J.T. Wenting

J.T. Wenting — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 02:40:44 +0000

They are however also counter to the nanny state paradigm which is ever more pervasive in both government and legal thinking.
The attitude that people have no responsibility at all for their own choices and mistakes, that everything is the fault of someone else, anyone else.

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:39:55 +0000

That case was moved to Philadelphia most likley because the Federal Third Circuit Court is there.

I was involved in a case where a trespasser on the rail was sleepy, used the rail as a pillow. It was a good, sleep promoting pillow. He failed to hear the frantic whistle of the locomotive. Same court had the case. No intoxicating substances found. This was a straight mistake.

That case was settled for mid-5 figures, after very aggressive defense. The above result seems unwarranted with an adequate defense. I had suggested the hiring a lawyer to intimidate the insurance defense lawyer into more aggressive actions. The interests of defendants and insurance companies are nearly adverse.

As a matter of sound policy, people who commit a crime, such as trespass, should not be rewarded with a money settlement. People who surf rail cars assume the risks. These are elementary, long standing, non-controversial attitudes in tort law.