“Family of man hit by train suing railroad, canoe company”

Springfield, Ohio: “The family of a man who was hit by a train while jumping off a trestle into a river two years ago is suing the railroad and a local canoe center.” The canoe company, according to the complaint, “knew or should have known that individuals frequently went onto the train trestle and jumped into the Mad River.” [Springfield News-Sun]


  • Gotta love the fact that it was the “Mad” River. “The canoe company should have known that that river was crazy!”

  • Even if the canoe rental company could be considered liable for renters deciding to get out of the canoe, climb the trestle, and jump off it, the problem here is not that the deceased jumped off the trestle but that he did not. Given that he climbed the trestle for the express purpose of jumping off it and can therefore be presumed to have had this option available to him, that he attempted to outrun a train is evidence of terminal foolishness. With all due condolences to his family and friends, this is natural selection in action.

  • Only suing for $24K? They’re trying for a “not worth the bother” settlement.

    Bill’s comment wins the thread. Can they present the Darwin Award in court?

  • Sounds like a Mountain Dew commercial gone horribly awry.

  • It’s in excess of $25,000. They want a “boat” load of money. But, I think that canoe has sailed.

  • Scotty could nae change the laws of physics. Neither can the engineer of a train. It takes a long time (and distance) for a train to stop from speed.

    Wasn’t there a case a short while back where somebody was awarded $$ because a subway train couldn’t stop before hitting him when he fell right in front of it? The innumerate should not be allowed to serve on juries.

  • Well, the canoe company is obviously at fault here.

    Why they didn’t install leg irons in their rental boats to insure folks wouldn’t get out of them to climb the trestle is beyond me. Lock in the renters when they leave the dock and unlock them when they return. Sounds reasonable, right?

    Sheese…..glad the lawyers are looking out for all the people out there who are too stupid to know not to go on railroad tracks.

  • i forgot. did this site post that onion video where they discussed the need for legislation to address the problem of cars driving off cliffs and landing on top of boats below?

    If you haven’t you should. this case almost sounds like that one.

    In other words, life is immitating the onion, as happens with frightening frequency.

  • According to the family’s lawyer this was a tragic acciden that should have been prevented. He is correct. The deceased’s family should have prevented him from behaving in the way they did. They should have taught him how to behave sanely.

    The train company should sue the family for failing to prevent their relative from causing emotional stress on the train’s engineer and costs associated with the accident.