Men sue Amtrak for not posting warning signs

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.
What kind of car were they climbing? If it was a non-powered coach, do they expect amtrak to put "DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE" signs on every single car in the fleet, regardless of whether or not they ever run under catenary?

Idiocy. Everybody knows you're not supposed to go near wires.
 
The teens were trespassing railroad property in the first place and even more so climbing on top of cars. Most likely though there will be some sort of setlement before the suit ever reaches court.
 
Hmmmmm, I see they are still alive to sue the two railroads. This goes to prove trespassing on railroad property can have serious consequences! As for the two guys, this goes to prove one fact, and that is, God protects "fools" and babies (kids)!
 
There are other issues to look at here as well, in fact something that was mentioned in the story is interesting and compelling in that Amtrak initialtes disciplinary action against any employee who goes within three feet of even a deenergized caternary wire.

However, I would have an incredibly hard time believing that a reasonably prudent person would climb on top of a train "just to check out the view" and they would have trouble there. However. you never know what will happen.
 
tp49 said:
There are other issues to look at here as well, in fact something that was mentioned in the story is interesting and compelling in that Amtrak initialtes disciplinary action against any employee who goes within three feet of even a deenergized caternary wire.
However, I would have an incredibly hard time believing that a reasonably prudent person would climb on top of a train "just to check out the view" and they would have trouble there. However. you never know what will happen.
It doesn't matter in regard to anything included in that news story! Bottom line is, RAILROADS are PRIVATE PROPERTY! Stay off the property, period! Unless one is granted permission to be there, don't be there! These types of hazards are there and play no favorites with trespassers. Those guys (teens) should have been concerned about the train just starting up and moving on (even though it was parked)! I and many of my coworkers report trespassers (or anyone unauthorized to be there) as soon as possible on ANY railroad property, not just Amtak's property!
 
xlr said:
What kind of car were they climbing?  If it was a non-powered coach, do they expect amtrak to put "DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE" signs on every single car in the fleet, regardless of whether or not they ever run under catenary?  
Idiocy.  Everybody knows you're not supposed to go near wires.
Yes a way cost livf to must mun or dad have on the station let travel note of powered :unsure: :huh: :eek:
 
Amtrak OBS Employee said:
Hmmmmm, I see they are still alive to sue the two railroads. This goes to prove trespassing on railroad property can have serious consequences! As for the two guys, this goes to prove one fact, and that is, God protects "fools" and babies (kids)!
The expression is "God protects fools and drunks." These people were certainly the former and I wouldn't surprised if they were also the latter.
 
Yes, I saw this as well. It is kind of ridiculous. However, apparently (as I hear at work) this is a common problem on the NEC. I personally haven't heard of it previously, but I guess it happens more often than seems likely.
 
In a system where you can win millions in damages for getting burned with hot coffee, why is anyone surprised that someone would sue over getting zapped on top of a train?
 
panamaclipper said:
In a system where you can win millions in damages for getting burned with hot coffee, why is anyone surprised that someone would sue over getting zapped on top of a train?
I'm not surprised, but it's live wire, anyone with common knowledge would know that and know not to touch it. Just like anyone with common knowledge knows coffee is hot and if it comes in contact with your skin it will burn.
 
To me that's like one request I heard several years back for FEC to fence in their ROW after some teens were killed while crossing the tracks on a shortcut to school. It's not the FEC's responsibility to put up fencing on either side of the ROW which is about 350 miles long, not only is it impractical, but it's a waste of money. Parents and schools alike need to teach their kids about railroad safety, especially when they live near the rails. But then again most parents aren't even that smart. While in Winter Haven last week waiting on 91, a group of parents and their kids were at the station awaiting 91 as well. A Florida Midland Z-Train (foreign train on CSX property) approached the station after switching cars in the Winter Haven siding. So rather than telling their kids to stay back the parents got out quarters to line up on the rails so that the quarters would be flattened by the oncoming train. Personally, I think that's a waste of money and childish to do something that immature. (For anyone who's looking at becoming an Engineer, if you see someone do this follow this procedure 1: Lay down your horn like nobody's business, 2: as you approach the section of rail with the quarters on it put on your Independent brake as the quarters will get caught in the brake shoes and the people will never see their money again, 3: flick off the people as you go by them, and if you can I would probably toss an open water container out of the cab as I go by, just to get the message across.)
 
Amfleet said:
panamaclipper said:
In a system where you can win millions in damages for getting burned with hot coffee, why is anyone surprised that someone would sue over getting zapped on top of a train?
I'm not surprised, but it's live wire, anyone with common knowledge would know that and know not to touch it. Just like anyone with common knowledge knows coffee is hot and if it comes in contact with your skin it will burn.
Small correction there Amfleet, they didn't touch the wire. :blink:

They were apparently smart enough to not do that, even if they weren't smart enough to realize that they were trespassing and doing something inherently unsafe, not to mention illegal.

The electricity arced from the wire to one of the men, much like a lightening bolt jumps from the clouds to the ground or a tree. It's their contention that Amtrak should have put up signs warning them that electricity can arc, as if they would have read those signs anymore than the one saying no trespassing or the fence that they didn't notice as they climbed over it.
 
Well if they were going to post signs (which they shouldn't have to) they would have to put them up every 100 feet or so to ensure that anyone who trespasses knew the electricity can arc.
 
Yeah, it's just like the farmer who got sued because he set up a booby trap that shot the robber that broke into his house. Apparently it's illegal to not let someone into your house, even if they aren't welcome.
 
battalion51 said:
To me that's like one request I heard several years back for FEC to fence in their ROW after some teens were killed while crossing the tracks on a shortcut to school. It's not the FEC's responsibility to put up fencing on either side of the ROW which is about 350 miles long, not only is it impractical, but it's a waste of money. Parents and schools alike need to teach their kids about railroad safety, especially when they live near the rails. But then again most parents aren't even that smart. While in Winter Haven last week waiting on 91, a group of parents and their kids were at the station awaiting 91 as well. A Florida Midland Z-Train (foreign train on CSX property) approached the station after switching cars in the Winter Haven siding. So rather than telling their kids to stay back the parents got out quarters to line up on the rails so that the quarters would be flattened by the oncoming train. Personally, I think that's a waste of money and childish to do something that immature. (For anyone who's looking at becoming an Engineer, if you see someone do this follow this procedure 1: Lay down your horn like nobody's business, 2: as you approach the section of rail with the quarters on it put on your Independent brake as the quarters will get caught in the brake shoes and the people will never see their money again, 3: flick off the people as you go by them, and if you can I would probably toss an open water container out of the cab as I go by, just to get the message across.)
I couldn't agree more. Now if only their was a way to reverse the flattening procedure so you could take those quarters from the brakes shoe and use them. ;)
 
engine999 said:
I couldn't agree more. Now if only their was a way to reverse the flattening procedure so you could take those quarters from the brakes shoe and use them. ;)
Just bring them to your local bank. :) They have to exchange them for you. It's their job to remove bad bills and/or coins from circulation and return them to the federal banks.
 
Amtrak OBS Employee said:
tp49 said:
There are other issues to look at here as well, in fact something that was mentioned in the story is interesting and compelling in that Amtrak initialtes disciplinary action against any employee who goes within three feet of even a deenergized caternary wire.
However, I would have an incredibly hard time believing that a reasonably prudent person would climb on top of a train "just to check out the view" and they would have trouble there.  However. you never know what will happen.
It doesn't matter in regard to anything included in that news story! Bottom line is, RAILROADS are PRIVATE PROPERTY! Stay off the property, period! Unless one is granted permission to be there, don't be there! These types of hazards are there and play no favorites with trespassers. Those guys (teens) should have been concerned about the train just starting up and moving on (even though it was parked)! I and many of my coworkers report trespassers (or anyone unauthorized to be there) as soon as possible on ANY railroad property, not just Amtak's property!
The fact that it is railroad poperty and the status of the teens as tresspassers will come into play; however as I stated before there are other issues that absolutly DO matter, for example something that would definitely matter is whether there is a documented history of trespassers in that vicinity and the steps the railroad takes to keep them out (fencing, signage, patrols, etc.) I say this because if there is a history of trespassing in that area (meaning it is a known shortcut) and the railroad did not take appropriate measures in attempting to keep trespassers out then yes this is an issue and would not bode well in the railroad's favor and would benefit the teens. Also the fact that employees are disciplined for going witin three feet of a deenergized caternary wire shows that Amtrak recognizes that an inherently dangerous condition exists and if the train is in a known yard area then it is reasonable that there should be adequate signage in that particular area warning of this condition plain and simple.

Also, what happens when trespassers are spotted and reported does the report go to either the railroad police or local authorities in the area with the trespassers or does it sit on someones desk and no action is taken. Any outcome is dependant on information in the story and information not included in the story as well

Thus the FACTS included in the news story have A LOT to do with things, and so do the facts that are yet to be published. In other threads I am one of the first to defend railroads against trespassers; however, in this instance there are issues that cause the other side of the argument to be relevant and needs to be mentioned so that there is an understanding as to why a suit of this nature would be allowed to proceed, but I digress.
 
tubaallen said:
Yeah, it's just like the farmer who got sued because he set up a booby trap that shot the robber that broke into his house. Apparently it's illegal to not let someone into your house, even if they aren't welcome.
This is a famous case and the reason the farmer lost is because while you have the right to protect your property you do not have the right to use deadly force to protect said prpoerty unless you are yourself threatened with deadly physical force and the defense of self-defence is inapplicable. This is why the farmer lost that case.
 
I guess engineers will have to encourage parents to put anything higher then quarters on the tracks. Those dollar coins will do nicely. :D :lol:
 
Teetotaler said:
Amtrak OBS Employee said:
Hmmmmm, I see they are still alive to sue the two railroads. This goes to prove trespassing on railroad property can have serious consequences! As for the two guys, this goes to prove one fact, and that is, God protects "fools" and babies (kids)!
The expression is "God protects fools and drunks." These people were certainly the former and I wouldn't surprised if they were also the latter.
I knew it went something like that!!!!!!! :lol: :D :lol:
 
tp49 said:
Amtrak OBS Employee said:
tp49 said:
There are other issues to look at here as well, in fact something that was mentioned in the story is interesting and compelling in that Amtrak initialtes disciplinary action against any employee who goes within three feet of even a deenergized caternary wire.
However, I would have an incredibly hard time believing that a reasonably prudent person would climb on top of a train "just to check out the view" and they would have trouble there.  However. you never know what will happen.
It doesn't matter in regard to anything included in that news story! Bottom line is, RAILROADS are PRIVATE PROPERTY! Stay off the property, period! Unless one is granted permission to be there, don't be there! These types of hazards are there and play no favorites with trespassers. Those guys (teens) should have been concerned about the train just starting up and moving on (even though it was parked)! I and many of my coworkers report trespassers (or anyone unauthorized to be there) as soon as possible on ANY railroad property, not just Amtak's property!
The fact that it is railroad poperty and the status of the teens as tresspassers will come into play; however as I stated before there are other issues that absolutly DO matter, for example something that would definitely matter is whether there is a documented history of trespassers in that vicinity and the steps the railroad takes to keep them out (fencing, signage, patrols, etc.) I say this because if there is a history of trespassing in that area (meaning it is a known shortcut) and the railroad did not take appropriate measures in attempting to keep trespassers out then yes this is an issue and would not bode well in the railroad's favor and would benefit the teens. Also the fact that employees are disciplined for going witin three feet of a deenergized caternary wire shows that Amtrak recognizes that an inherently dangerous condition exists and if the train is in a known yard area then it is reasonable that there should be adequate signage in that particular area warning of this condition plain and simple.

Also, what happens when trespassers are spotted and reported does the report go to either the railroad police or local authorities in the area with the trespassers or does it sit on someones desk and no action is taken. Any outcome is dependant on information in the story and information not included in the story as well

Thus the FACTS included in the news story have A LOT to do with things, and so do the facts that are yet to be published. In other threads I am one of the first to defend railroads against trespassers; however, in this instance there are issues that cause the other side of the argument to be relevant and needs to be mentioned so that there is an understanding as to why a suit of this nature would be allowed to proceed, but I digress.
I see your point, but somewhere we must draw the line in regard to who is responsible for their own safety! That is my point! In this case, the teens were hurt before they were spotted by police, etc. But I still say we need to draw the line! I get tired of hearing and reading this kind of crap in this lawsuit happy country in which we live! I will close with this point: if the men lose their suit, then they should be responsible for paying all of the court and lawyers costs and other fees for the railroad(s) involved as well as their own!!!! That is all I have to say! But I do see your point to the extent!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top