Only in the US?

Does your thread title imply that "only in the US" would a newspaper find the award ridiculous, as apparently did a senior judge who was involved in (and disagreed with) the decision? "But if the headline is acurate..." - what were you implying? Of course the incident, invoked itself by stupidity, is tragic. Personally I feel for the poor motorman who was apparently held to be partially at fault, although no clear evidence was reported as to IF he had time and conditions to enable him to stop in time...

No, my thread title refers to the award being given, not the reaction to it. I hadn't read the story at the time I posted this picture (as I attempted to make clear) and so didn't know about the judge's opinon - which I agree with.



I too completely feel for the motorman. As I said I hadn't read the story, so my comment was meant to be read along the lines of "If this headline accurately represents the story then I really don't know what comment to make as it seems so unjust.
After reading the story it turns out that it is not just the paper that is outraged but that multiple judges are as well, which makes my thread title less appropriate.

The full decision of the court can be read here:

www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/mar06/37opn06.pdf

It is apparent that the plaintiff/victim was unusually stupid, but it also seems at least possible that the motorman may not have been as alert as he could have been. Having read various posts on this site concerning accidents on the tube, I still do not understand the title of this post. There are idiots who trespass on railway lines all over the world. The railway company should not have been liable here but there are miscarraiges of justice everywhere in the world too, not just in the US.

Anyway, this is very old news since the newspaper story was published in March 2006.

Actually, because this is a decision in the New York State courts, under New York State law, the amount of damages awarded is limited to the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff. New York does not allow punitive damages which are the source for ridiculous damage awards such as received by the woman who spilled hot McDonalds coffee on herself after receiving the coffee at a drive-through window.

The damages would have been assessed in the case under discussion here only after first finding the railway company at fault. (I think that was wrong, but that was the court's decision.) After apportioning fault, the jury is required to assess the actual damage suffered by the plaintiff -- his medical expenses, inability to have future employment, the amount of future employment income lost due to his injuries, etc., etc., etc. That calculation then has to be approved by the court.

The plaintiff was 18 years old when the accident happened. $1.4 million in a lump-sum is a lot of money, but when you spread it over a future life-span of maybe sixty years, he is going to have to husband his money pretty carefully.

The questionable justice here is whether the railway company was really liable; the award, once liability was established, is not unreasonable. Remember that in the US there is no NHS and the dole is a lot less generous even for permanently disabled persons.

I have a lot more feeling for the motorman who is probably still reliving the event and who would not have gotten any recompense for his very real trauma.

While i agree thats alot of money for doing something stupid. The man was only 18 and is now disabled for life. In the US It's 21 to drink unlike here in the UK it's 18.
The person who sold him the drink or gave him the drink is half to blame here.

But really yes it was something stupid and he has 1.4 million to help him through the rest of his disabled life. Really though, he lost his legs and the money won't bring them back.

It was wrong and in some way no he should not get the money. But hey we all make mistakes, his cost him his life in many ways and this will help him through life.
If anyone says he should be crippled and be living on the dole for the rest of his life,
well as i said we all make mistakes. Many things like this make me look at life.

How people can put down people for a mistake when they might have made mistakes in there life and had no reward.

I say well done to him, it's not my problem and at least he won't have to suffer so much for his fatal mistake.

James

I have no sympathy for the guy at all, he shouldn't have been there and he was old enough to know better. Making the TA pay out compensation will encourage others to make ridiculous claims and get awards e.g. for attempting suicide and not succeeding but sustaining injury.
The whole concept of blame culture is simply wrong and should be outlawed, I recall a time when passengers travelled at their own risk!

Brian

I agree with you on that one DS18. How the hell can he try and outrun a train, lose his legs then get $1.4 millon? The article also adds that the NYC Transit Authority were 75% to blame. They never made this guy and his friends walk along the track, how can it be 75% their fault?

Just because there's red tape between the platform pillars or engineering work going on, it doesn't mean you have the right to run along the trackside!

he is responsible for his own actions just as the likes of me and you would be, it is in no way the driver or train companys fault,.......

The structure of tort law in the US allows some surprising lawsuits, and verdicts. The classic one is the case in California where a burglar fell through the skylight of the house he was trying to rob and successfully sued the homeowner.

One of my first acts as supreme ruler (not that I'd want the job) would be to make it illegal to gain compensation for injuries, etc sustained while committing an illegal act or disregarding official safety notices/warnings.
I'd also introduce a common sense test for the second part, e.g it is common sense not to walk in front of a moving train so you shouldn't get compensation if you do this despite not being explicitly warned (although in this case you would probably be trespassing and thus covered by the first part).

Cite? That sounds apocryphal - at most, some ambulance-chaser might have encouraged the burglar to sue, but he certainly wouldn't have won anything in a UK court.

Possibly although it was a few years ago and I can't recall if the story was that the burglar alleged that he had been thrown through the patio doors in a struggle. Either way he should have had no rights at all as he was a trespasser as well as a burglar!

As a kid I was like most kids, inquisitive etc and would shin up drain pipes, over walls and fences and if I got injured it was my fault. If I got caught I expected to get a good clip round the ear from the owner, a constable or both and then another from my father if he found out. I was certainly not a villain and knew right from wrong from a very young age. I have little sympathy for anyone who is blatantly acting with criminal intent but not too much for the youngster who has been properly taught and disciplined by his parents. Obviously there are exceptions and I had schoolfriends who drowned in quarries or got decapitated sticking their head where it shouldn't be but that is life. They ignored the rules and common sense that indicated danger and paid the price.

I think it wrong that the onus is placed upon owners to protect unwanted intruders against themselves regardless of the circumstances.

Brian