Voltage turns man atop Acela into conductor

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
1,805
Location
Harrison Michigan
Voltage turns man atop Acela into conductor

BOSTON -- Authorities said a New Yorker anxious to get home yesterday (July 10) climbed on top of an Acela Express train berthed at South Station and stepped into 25,000 volts of electricity that scorched nearly 85 percent of his body, according to this report by Laurel J. Sweet published by the Boston Herald.

"He was significantly injured," Amtrak spokeswoman Karina Romero said of Brian Hopkins, 24, who was in critical condition at Massachusetts General Hospital with third-degree burns.

Hopkins, of White Plains, N.Y., was found aflame on top of the trainset just after 4 a.m. by Boston firefighters after he had spent Saturday night visiting with a friend in the North End.

Investigators suspect Hopkins may have been intoxicated and came in contact with the overhead electrical wires that power the high-speed Acela.

Hopkins disappeared at 2:30 a.m., when he walked out of his friend's North End apartment.

"That was the last time the friend saw him," said Joe Pesaturo, spokesman for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and Transit Police.

Hopkins' friend, he said, later got in a cab to go look for him, but with no success. Police said Hopkins was carrying what appeared to be architectural drawings. A family member reached in New York declined to comment.

It was unclear how Hopkins reached South Station. There is no train service at 4 a.m. Pesaturo said police found "evidence" that Hopkins tried to get inside the train, which was parked on Track 7 with its doors shut. He declined to elaborate.

"He had indicated to his friend that he wanted to get back to New York this morning," Pesaturo said yesterday of Hopkins.

The Boston police bomb squad responded to the scene as a precaution.

To fully appreciate the magnitude of the shock Hopkins suffered, by comparison to the 25,000-volt Acela, MBTA Green Line trolleys run on 600 volts of electricity.

(The preceding report by Laurel J. Sweet was published by the Boston Herald on Tuesday, July 11, 2006.)

July 11, 2006
 
battalion51 said:
Talk about a bad pun for a headline.
OH come on Guy, Cut Matt some slack. If you noticed, everything he has posted the last couple of days is verified text. Wasn't that what many people asked for? As for the pun, it could be considered in bad taste to some, as a former electrician I thought it quite accurate. I have been burned over 45 % of my body with 3rd degree burns and feel for the burned man but still can be objective over the pun.You have to admit

that the Guy wasn't the brightest bulb on the string, at least till he came in contact with the power lines...
 
All I can say is..... "it sucks to be him!" OBS...
 
OH come on Guy, Cut Matt some slack. If you noticed, everything he has posted the last couple of days is verified text. Wasn't that what many people asked for
Gotta agree with you Critter. If someone dislikes another member, I suggest not reading his post's.....

Conductor:

1. The person who leads a musical group

2. A device used to transmit electricity, heat,etc

3. A substance that readily conducts eg electricity, heat, etc

4. The person that collect fares on a public conveyance

Seems like that guy qualified as at least 2 of the 4 definitions and as a railroad forum the fourth kinda ties in.......
 
It was nothing against Matt. Matt and I get along pretty well, and I do realize that the article was published by the Boston Herald and it was their headline. But I was implying that a Conductor in train terms is also the guy who's in charge of the train, so it could be construed as a bad pun.
 
battalion51 said:
It was nothing against Matt. Matt and I get along pretty well, and I do realize that the article was published by the Boston Herald and it was their headline. But I was implying that a Conductor in train terms is also the guy who's in charge of the train, so it could be construed as a bad pun.
I'm sorry Bat 51....I now understand the intent of your first reply and I apologize for jumping to conclusions.
 
AmtrakFan said:
I sure hope if the guy sues, the judge laughs this one out of court.   "I would hate to be him"
I wouldn't be so sure of that Amtrakfan. There are a lot of wacko judges out there and we live in a sociality that thinks that it's always someone else's fault for our own actions. I bet they even go after the power company (if it's different from Amtrak) for putting electricity into the power lines....
 
Crispy Critter said:
battalion51 said:
It was nothing against Matt. Matt and I get along pretty well, and I do realize that the article was published by the Boston Herald and it was their headline. But I was implying that a Conductor in train terms is also the guy who's in charge of the train, so it could be construed as a bad pun.
I'm sorry Bat 51....I now understand the intent of your first reply and I apologize for jumping to conclusions.
YES me too Battalion51... I misconstrued your reply also.

SORRY.........
 
Friends don't let friends...

play around High Voltage Catenary Wires drunk.

As someone who has never been drunk myself, but who has had to deal with more than my share of dumb.....ses who were, I have little pity for those who get wasted and do idiotic things.

Sad thing is, I can see some dipwit lawyer trying to make a case out of this, saying that passengers should not have such "easy" access to such harmful effects, while totally ignoring this "gentleman's" personal responsibility.
 
battalion51 said:
It was nothing against Matt. Matt and I get along pretty well, and I do realize that the article was published by the Boston Herald and it was their headline.
It was NOT their headline; it was:

N.Y. man critical after being zapped atop Acela train
 
JAChooChoo said:
battalion51 said:
It was nothing against Matt. Matt and I get along pretty well, and I do realize that the article was published by the Boston Herald and it was their headline.
It was NOT their headline; it was:

N.Y. man critical after being zapped atop Acela train
So ? Does this change it from a good pun to a bad one or vice versa or just who posted it?]

The person was injured reguardless of the wording.
 
I'm putting $10 on him suing Amtrak for something stupid like not making it hard enough to climb on top of an Acela when drunk......

*j*

Aaaaand here you go.

EXCLUSIVE: Amtrak fights Queens architect’s train electric shock lawsuit

A federal jury in Brooklyn will decide who was more reckless — Amtrak for parking an Acela train overnight under an electrified wire in Boston’s South Station, or a Queens architect who drunkenly climbed atop a train car and was shocked and badly burned by the wire.

Brian Hopkins had just earned a Master’s Degree in architecture from Yale University and was celebrating having landed his first job on July 9, 2006, when he did something really stupid and was zapped with 25,000 volts running through the overhead wire.

Hopkins’ lawsuit against Amtrak and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority contends there was hazard sign in the station warning that the catenary lines were energized, and claimed that Hopkins’ actions were “a minor contributing factor despite his impaired condition — he had a blood alcohol level of .26, more than three times the legal limit if he was driving a car.
“The evidence certainly does not suggest that Defendants had actual intention to cause harm to Hopkins, so the question for trial will be whether Defendants’ conduct constituted ‘an intentional or unreasonable disregard of a risk that presented a high degree of probability that substantial harm would result to another,’” Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis ruled in denying a motion to dismiss the suit.

Jury selection is scheduled for May 2 in Brooklyn Federal Court.Hopkins suffered terrible injuries in the mishap. Firefighters found him engulfed in flames. He suffered severe burns over 85% of his body resulting in the amputation of an arm and a leg. He endured numerous skin grafts and a penile reconstruction.

Hopkins testified in a deposition that he has no recollection of climbing on the train or how he was shocked.

“Really, I don’t know,” he said, according to a transcript of the deposition.

He acknowledged that he had learned at an early age that trains ran on electricity. “I couldn’t give you an exact age but probably sometime after I read ‘The Red Choo Choo That Could,’” Hopkins said.Amtrak lawyers argued in court papers that it was not highly probable that someone, after a night of heavy drinking and beer pong, would climb on a parked train at 4 a.m. and come in contact with the catenary wire.

Lawyers for the plaintiff and the defendants did not return calls and messages seeking comment.
 
Perhaps I'm a terrible person, but that headline made me laugh. I appreciate clever wordplay. :)
 
And he might win.

In 1990, an inebriated Princeton University student climbed onto a stored NJ Transit car at Princeton Junction in the middle of the night and came into contact with the overhead 12,000 volt catenary. He was severely and permanently injured. He sued NJ Transit, the university, and the establishments who assisted in him becoming drunk. The claims were settled for $5.7 million in 1995. An aftereffect of that case is the chainlink corral that now surrounds the stored NJ Transit cars used for the Dinky.

A permanently injured person is a very sympathetic figure compared to nameless, faceless corporate defendants. Juries are human and have feelings. It's a fact of life that sets the bar very high for defending claims like this. Typically, the prudent move is to settle if a reasonable number can be reached. Sometimes that requires gritting your teeth knowing you are in the right, being right and winning can be two different things. Been there, done that. It's part of the cost of doing business. You can't take it personally.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps I'm a terrible person, but that headline made me laugh. I appreciate clever wordplay. :)
I gotta be honest.. I did too.. I just didn't wanna say it first.. :)

And he might win.

In 1990, an inebriated Princeton University student climbed onto a stored NJ Transit car at Princeton Junction in the middle of the night and came into contact with the overhead 12,000 volt catenary. He was severely and permanently injured. He sued NJ Transit, the university, and the establishments who assisted in him becoming drunk. The claims were settled for $5.7 million in 1995. An aftereffect of that case is the chainlink corral that now surrounds the stored NJ Transit cars used for the Dinky.

A permanently injured person is a very sympathetic figure compared to nameless, faceless corporate defendants. Juries are human and have feelings. It's a fact of life that sets the bar very high for defending claims like this. Typically, the prudent move is to settle if a reasonable number can be reached. Sometimes that requires gritting your teeth knowing you are in the right, being right and winning can be two different things. Been there, done that. It's part of the cost of doing business. You can't take it personally.
You just had to lead it off with "And he might win"...

I can agree with suing the establishment(s) as the server/bartender should know when to "cut off" a person from consuming adult beverages at their establishment. But IINM aren't the Dinky cars locked up in a Pen of sorts at night? Or is that a more recent thing?
 
And he might win. In 1990, an inebriated Princeton University student climbed onto a stored NJ Transit car at Princeton Junction in the middle of the night and came into contact with the overhead 12,000 volt catenary. He was severely and permanently injured. He sued NJ Transit, the university, and the establishments who assisted in him becoming drunk. The claims were settled for $5.7 million in 1995. A permanently injured person is a very sympathetic figure compared to nameless, faceless corporate defendants. Juries are human and have feelings. It's a fact of life that sets the bar very high for defending claims like this. Typically, the prudent move is to settle if a reasonable number can be reached. Sometimes that requires gritting your teeth knowing you are in the right, being right and winning can be two different things. Been there, done that. It's part of the cost of doing business. You can't take it personally.
You can't blame a sympathetic jury for a defendant sanctioned settlement. If the passenger rail industry hands out five million dollars when a drunk moron gets fried by way of their own stupidity then that industry only have themselves to blame when the next drunk moron comes knocking. Not to mention that there have been a lot of changes to maximum punitive penalties and tort relief since the 1990's. In exchange for restricting judgements and compensation for morons like this we were also forced to accept limits on gross negligence and even intentional misconduct. I'm not sure who benefited from any of this but apparently reason wasn't part of the equation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chris: see Abbott, Greg, current Governor of Texas and leading proponent of Tort Reform as Texas Attorney General.

His fortune was made as a Houston Attorney by winning a law suit that left him a parapalegic.

His motto: "I got mine so screw you!" ( also see Thomas, Clarence, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court)

Their shared guiding light:" Unequal justice under the law!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He survived, as far as I see it he's a lucky man. Booze can make you survive just about anything. ^_^
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top