having been familiar with this process because i used to driver OTR… similar as far as it takes time to slow a vehicle down whether truck or rail. if drunk, he had know clue as to how he ended up in the track much less how he gotten there. he could have been bumped or he bumped off a person or column. i don’t see how they could make the motorman primary responsible for a drunk’s actions. it be like a drunk driver who moved in front of me and cut me off and i crashed into him because there was no room to react. again, we don’t know how much details about the distances…
Somebody has to pay for the individual being irresponsible. Since the guy is not independently wealthy (making that assumption)then the City must pay for his own stupid ignorance. Since the “victim” was drunk, he should also sue the bar he was drinking at, the bartender and waitress or waiters for serving him, the rail manufacturer for allowing him to rest on it, the auto manufacture for allowing him to drive his car or the taxi company who picked him up at the bar and drove him, the shoe manufacturer for allowing him to walk while he was drunk, his mother and father for raising an irresponsible individual. Someone else should pay!
The jury’s original verdict and award is symtomatic of how deficient our legal system is. Their rationale (or lack thereof) that the train operator was primarily negligent and liable smacks of complete ignorance of the comparative negligence statute that is supposed to apply (in theory)in NY. It is reflective of the give-a-way mentality of too many New Yorkers who can smell a buck a mile away.
When someone makes a decision to drink too much thereby losing control of their senses and abilities to protect themselves from harm, they are primarily responsible. Anyone who’s been in a subway station knows the visibility on the tracks is extremely limited. On approach to a stop, the engineer has more to lookout for than some drunk laying on the tracks. He’s more concerned (and rightfully so) about the safety of the sober people on the platform. His negligence, if any, should be minimal.
It’s time to have professional jurors who are well educated, well-paid, and have the ability to objectively evaluate relevant evidence. Japan has such a system.
All the more reason to lobby for Stupidity Exclusions:
AMENDMENT — STUPIDITY EXCLUSION
THIS ENDORSEMENT MODIFIES INSURANCE PROVIDED UNDER THE FOLLOWING:
It is hereby agreed that form ____ B. Exclusions is amended to include as follows:
r. “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage” arising from a “Loss” caused by an “act” deemed “stupid” or “asinine” by any reasonable and prudent person. Ignorance of your “stupid” or “asinine” actions shall not be deemed payable under any clause of this contract.
well, we could say that he had found a place to sleep like any homeless fella, but decided it was a bit warmer or sounded better w/his head against the rail… luckily it was not the third rail… that would have been a shockful experience.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
having been familiar with this process because i used to driver OTR… similar as far as it takes time to slow a vehicle down whether truck or rail. if drunk, he had know clue as to how he ended up in the track much less how he gotten there. he could have been bumped or he bumped off a person or column. i don’t see how they could make the motorman primary responsible for a drunk’s actions. it be like a drunk driver who moved in front of me and cut me off and i crashed into him because there was no room to react. again, we don’t know how much details about the distances…
It is about time a reasonable decision has come down even though this one is a no-brainer.
Somebody has to pay for the individual being irresponsible. Since the guy is not independently wealthy (making that assumption)then the City must pay for his own stupid ignorance. Since the “victim” was drunk, he should also sue the bar he was drinking at, the bartender and waitress or waiters for serving him, the rail manufacturer for allowing him to rest on it, the auto manufacture for allowing him to drive his car or the taxi company who picked him up at the bar and drove him, the shoe manufacturer for allowing him to walk while he was drunk, his mother and father for raising an irresponsible individual. Someone else should pay!
The jury’s original verdict and award is symtomatic of how deficient our legal system is. Their rationale (or lack thereof) that the train operator was primarily negligent and liable smacks of complete ignorance of the comparative negligence statute that is supposed to apply (in theory)in NY. It is reflective of the give-a-way mentality of too many New Yorkers who can smell a buck a mile away.
When someone makes a decision to drink too much thereby losing control of their senses and abilities to protect themselves from harm, they are primarily responsible. Anyone who’s been in a subway station knows the visibility on the tracks is extremely limited. On approach to a stop, the engineer has more to lookout for than some drunk laying on the tracks. He’s more concerned (and rightfully so) about the safety of the sober people on the platform. His negligence, if any, should be minimal.
It’s time to have professional jurors who are well educated, well-paid, and have the ability to objectively evaluate relevant evidence. Japan has such a system.
did they convict the drunk for drinking in public? or anything of that sort? or how did they know he was drunk?
In the article the guy admitted he was too drunk to know how he got there. Guess he wasn’t sane enough when he testified under oath.
All the more reason to lobby for Stupidity Exclusions:
AMENDMENT — STUPIDITY EXCLUSION
THIS ENDORSEMENT MODIFIES INSURANCE PROVIDED UNDER THE FOLLOWING:
It is hereby agreed that form ____ B. Exclusions is amended to include as follows:
r. “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage” arising from a “Loss” caused by an “act” deemed “stupid” or “asinine” by any reasonable and prudent person. Ignorance of your “stupid” or “asinine” actions shall not be deemed payable under any clause of this contract.
well, we could say that he had found a place to sleep like any homeless fella, but decided it was a bit warmer or sounded better w/his head against the rail… luckily it was not the third rail… that would have been a shockful experience.
so i wonder where he’s sleeping now?