Brian Hopkins, 25, of Astoria, Queens, New York City, “who survived an electric shock and fire two years ago when he climbed atop an empty, stopped Amtrak train after a night of bar hopping in Boston is suing the railroad – because Amtrak didn’t do enough to protect trespassers like him.” (Kathianne Boniello, New York Post, Aug. 31).
Posts Tagged ‘railroads’
July 8 roundup
- Business groups have signed off on dreadful ADA Restoration Act aimed at expanding disabled-rights lawsuits, reversing high court decisions that had moderated the law [WSJ; more here and here]
- U.K. man to win damages from rail firms on claim that trauma of Paddington crash turned him into deranged killer [Times Online]
- Patent cases taken on contingency lead to gigantic paydays for D.C.’s Dickstein Shapiro and Wiley Rein [Kim Eisler, Washingtonian; related last year at Eric Goldman’s]
- Fort Lauderdale injury lawyer disbarred after stealing $300K in client funds; per an ABA state-by-state listing, Florida has not enacted payee notification to help prevent/detect such goings-on [Sun-Sentinel; more]
- I’ll pay top dollar for that spot under the bridge: tech firms hope to outbid patent trolls for marginal inventor rights [ABA Journal]
- Enviro-sympathetic analysis of Navy sonar case [Jamison Colburn, Dorf on Law, first and second posts via Adler @ Volokh]
- Obama proposal for youth national service “voluntary”? Well, schools will lose funds if they fail to meet goals [Goldberg, LAT; bad link fixed now]
- Not-so-independent sector: under pressure from Sacramento legislators (Feb. 6, PoL May 30), California foundations pledge to redirect millions toward minority causes [CRC]
- James Lileks on lawyer-friendly Microsoft Minnesota settlement [four years ago on Overlawyered]
June 9 roundup
- Florida trial lawyers have funneled millions to Gov. Charlie Crist and GOP state legislators; now guess why Orlando isn’t going to get commuter rail [Bousquet/St. Petersburg Times; Sentinel]
- What his ex-law firm told the world was “extremely inappropriate personal conduct” was in reality no more than a “brief, consensual kiss” with co-worker, charges attorney in $90 million defamation suit; Kasowitz Benson says it was following zero tolerance policy [American Lawyer]
- SCOTUS, 9-0, Thomas writing, narrows scope for money-laundering charges over hiding unexplained cash — but will that curb forfeiture abuse? [Grits for Breakfast, Greenfield]
- After West Virginia high court refuses to review $405 million royalty dispute jury verdict against Chesapeake Energy and another defendant, company scraps plans to build $30 million headquarters in the state [PoL]
- Even after discounting anti-corporate rhetoric, there does seem to be a story here about aggressive seed patent litigation tactics used by agri-giant Monsanto, a firm known to our readers [Barlett & Steele, Vanity Fair; earlier]
- Medical liability consequences of much-promoted concept of hospital “never events” [Buckeye Surgeon]
- Cellphone rage update: Judge Robert Restaino ousted for jailing 46 people after one of the annoying devices rang out in his Niagara Falls, N.Y. courtroom [Buffalo News, earlier]
Update: Trespass atop rail car, win $24 million
Updating our item of Oct. 2006: a Pennsylvania federal judge has declined to set aside a $24 million jury verdict “against two railroad companies for injuries suffered by two teenagers climbing on a train car parked near Lancaster in 2002.” U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence F. Stengel lambasted attorneys for defendants Amtrak and Norfolk Southern for having at trial “‘demeaned’ the two young men ‘for their lack of intelligence, judgment and common sense in choosing to climb to the top of the boxcar.'” Stengel upheld the jury’s assignment of all the blame for the accident to the railroads and none to the youths, who were both 17 at the time. (Janet Kelley, “$24M verdict upheld in railroad burn case”, Lancaster New Era, Apr. 2).
September 10 roundup
All-New England edition:
- Massachusetts bar-exam flunker drops suit over gay-marriage question [Boston Herald, OnPointNews; see Jul. 7]
- “We cannot get rail service between Nashua and Boston because a cap on liability may be unconstitutional in New Hampshire thanks to the trial lawyers” [letter in Nashua Telegraph; earlier news story]
- Whodunit? Everyone, as in a certain Christie novel: Rhode Island nightclub fire lawsuits name 93 different defendants [New York Times; see Feb. 16, 2006]
- Update: skull-fragment-keeping officer Callahan departs the Norwalk, Ct. police force [Created Things; earlier Jan. 23 and Jun. 21]
A belated Pearson statistic
$54 million would pay for 216 years worth of claims for damaged pants on the Long Island Rail Road and the Metro-North Railroad combined.
Chutzpah, railroad edition
In 2004, Phillip Waisonovitz accidentally killed his co-worker, Robert Ard, by backing over him with a train. Ard’s family sued, claiming negligent supervision, and just won $4.3 million from the employer, Metro-North Railroad. So that settles that, right? Close, but not quite. As the Associated Press explains:
Phillip Waisonovitz, the engineer who backed up the engine, became distraught after learning it had struck Ard.
(I’ll wager Ard wasn’t thrilled, either!)
He has been out of work on disability since then with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Waisonovitz has filed suit against the railroad company and Ard’s estate. That case is pending.
In case you think you misread that, I’ll explain it again: Waisonovitz killed Ard, and is suing Ard for the mental anguish Ard’s death caused him. The nerve of Ard!
In case you were wondering, workers comp laws generally don’t apply to railroads.
[CORRECTION: As can be seen in the comments, there’s an important correction to this story. The media report I relied upon got the story wrong; Waisonovitz did not sue Ard. Waisonovitz only sued Metro-North; it was the railroad that brought Ard into the case.
This hardly makes Mr. Waisonovitz a poster child for personal responsibility; his lawsuit still boils down to him suing the railroad because he feels bad that he ran someone over. But he isn’t suing the direct victim.]
Trespass atop rail car, win $24 million
Ted mentioned this one in his roundup yesterday, but it merits a post of its own, duly assigned to our “personal responsibility” archive: Jeffrey Klein and Brett Birdwell were 17 “when they trespassed onto railroad property and climbed atop a rail car” because they wanted to see the view from there. They were shocked by a 12,500-volt wire and severely injured. The incident took place in Lancaster, Pa. but through the miracle of forum selection the lawsuit against Amtrak and Norfolk Southern landed before a jury in Philadelphia, a locality notably more favorable for plaintiffs than Lancaster. An attorney said the railroads should have posted signs for the benefit of trespassers warning of the overhead hazard and also should have had the electricity turned off at the time. As Ted pointed out, Birdwell, who was awarded $6.8 million, had injuries transient enough that he’s now serving with the Army in Afghanistan. (“$24.2 million for men burned atop rail car”, AP/MSNBC, Oct. 27; Brett Lovelace, “Verdict: $24.2M”, Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, Oct. 27; Janet Kelley, “A $24.2M question”, Lancaster New Era, Oct. 27)(& Coyote Blog). Update: railroads appeal (AP, Nov. 15).
LA commuter train derailment
At least eleven people were killed and over a hundred injured yesterday when a suicidal Juan Manuel Alvarez parked his Jeep on the train tracks, causing a collision that eventually derailed three trains. The lead train was being pushed, rather than pulled, by the locomotive, a common means to save time by permitting more trips to be taken. According to the LA Times, experts disagree whether this has safety implications. (Dan Weikel and Scott Glover. “Train’s Lineup May Have Added to Risk”, LA Times, Jan. 27). Realistically, at a minimum, this design probably makes some types of accidents worse, has no effect on some other types of accidents, and provides additional protection for still other kinds of accidents such as being rear-ended (as happened in a Long Island RR accident last year). But the conclusion that courts draw when reasonable people differ over the optimal train design is not that the commuter rail system acted reasonably, but that a jury of laypeople should resolve the debate by second-guessing whether they did so. So mark January 26, 2006, on your calendars, for you’ll surely see lawsuits seeking to hold Metrolink liable for the consequences of Alvarez’s deliberate actions, just as Santa Monica was sued one year after a driver plowed into the Farmers’ Market there (Jul. 14).