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.
He survived, as far as I see it he's a lucky man. Booze can make you survive just about anything. ^_^
He suffered horrible life altering injuries, losing an arm and a leg and undergoing numerous surgeries. I doubt he sees himself as "lucky". He got drunk and did something really, really stupid. Whether the platform area should have been more secure or whether Amtrak and the MBTA have some liability in what happened, that will be for the jury to decide (or for the parties to settle).

As for the suggestion that he should sue Yale for not teaching him about the dangers of getting drunk, Yale does have far deeper pockets than Amtrak with a $35+ billion endowment. But I would venture that Yale does have posters and safety programs advising students about the dangers of heavy drinking which probably give them a degree of protection from such lawsuits. Which of course is a reason to have such safety educational programs. If he were to sue Yale for not teaching him about the dangers of getting seriously drunk, on those grounds, he could possibly sue his parents, his high school, and even his friends for not either warning him sufficiently or not stopping him from getting drunk and getting hurt. Which probably not get very far in court...
 
If this case has dragged on for this long without a settlement, he's probably asking for an arm and a leg.
 
applause.gif
 
Case dropped. After Judge ruled Amtrak could introduce that he was drunk and reckless.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/queens-man-electrocuted-acela-train-drops-case-amtrak-article-1.2621705

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I think Daily News writers need some English lessons:

"Queens man who electrocuted himself after climbing atop Acela train drops case against Amtrak"Where I come from, use of the word "electrocuted" implies that the person involved is no longer living.

And Webster seems to agree with me: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/electrocute
 
Good point. According to Google, Merriam-Webster says "to kill (a person or animal) by electric shock."

What I really want to know is how the heck did he get up there in the first place? I know he was drunk & doesn't remember it, but I don't understand how anybody --- even a drunk person --- could think the top of a train is a good place to be, electric or not. It seems a lot like trying to ride in the firebox of a steam loco.

Tom
 
The definition of this word has been amended over time by its usage.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/electrocute

verb
[with object]
Injure or kill someone by electric shock: a man was electrocuted when he switched on the Christmas tree lights
A further explanation:

Usage notes

Formally, the words electrocute and electrocution always imply fatality. Informally, however, these terms are rather often used to refer to serious but nonfatal electric shocks. Strictly correct usage is to reserve electrocute and electrocution for fatal electric shocks, and to use shock or electric shock for nonfatal ones.

I think Spock would agree with your position of literal meanings.



The rest of us get the message.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top