#3
We already discussed it some time ago, e-son

edit: We estabilished nobody could be held accountable.
#6
She is just a sick, heartless bastard.
Guitars and basses:

Fender Blacktop Telecaster|Epiphone Junior SG|Ibanez Lawsuit Strat|anelectro '63|Eagle tele w/ P-90s|Duke LP-copy|Cort B2A bass|Ibanez AW-40TCS
#7
Reminded me of this important negligence case I learnt about in my law class.
Hull City A.F.C

Quote by Thrashtastic15
crunkym toy diuckl;ess ass ****igkjn ****** **** bitch ass pussy ****er douchecanoe ****** **** you s omn cnt you lieet le biutch
Last edited by cam_sampbell at Jan 13, 2012,
#8
Surprisingly, most of UG sided with the woman who sued.
Quote by yellowfrizbee
What does a girl have to do to get it in the butt thats all I ever wanted from you. Why, Ace? Why? I clean my asshole every night hoping and wishing and it never happens.
Bitches be Crazy.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
#9
.....I'm moving to Switzerland

Besides, dead me don't pay no dues!
Starting Weight: 310, 38.8% Body fat (11/2008, pic in profile)
Latest Weigh in 230.2 14.3% Body fat (4/13/2013)

Pro life, pro gun, health nut, Christian and conservative. I make no apologies if what I say pisses anybody off.
#10
Quote by Acϵ♠
Surprisingly, most of UG sided with the woman who sued.

Wouldn't normally be surprised, but I am slightly surprised that they actually sided with a woman.
REGGIE
#12
Quote by LeakyFlask
Wouldn't normally be surprised, but I am slightly surprised that they actually sided with a woman.


No i know that's what what im saying. There was a disturbing lack of sandwich and kitchen jokes in that thread.
Quote by yellowfrizbee
What does a girl have to do to get it in the butt thats all I ever wanted from you. Why, Ace? Why? I clean my asshole every night hoping and wishing and it never happens.
Bitches be Crazy.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
#15
I think I agree with the woman, somewhat.

Quote by Article
'it was reasonably foreseeable' that the high-speed train would kill the college hopeful and fling his body toward a platform where people were waiting.

...

'If you do something as stupid as this guy did, you have to be responsible for what comes from it,' she said.


That much makes sense and I agree with it.

But, for the woman to go as far as to sue, well, that's a bit petty. I guess she could have got some sort of compensation or something because her injuries weren't life threatening, but I guess you could call them serious but blaming the boy, that's ridiculous. There was no whistle, it was raining heavily, he had his head under an umbrella and all this would have made it harder to spot the train.
Last edited by WholeLottaIzzy at Jan 13, 2012,
#16
This is why it's stupid:

It was pouring with rain and the teen had an umbrella over his head.

Seeing what he thought was his local train approaching and expecting it to slow down, Joho went to cross a same-level pedestrian walkway across the tracks to get to the right side of the track.

Keith Davidson, one of Park's attorneys, said that the crossing where of high speed trains cross a slow commuter train track is inherently hazardous.

The whistle that warns people to keep clear is no longer in use and the view of the track is partly blocked by foliage, he said.


If you have a pedestrian level-crossing, at a station, in the pouring rain, it's pretty damn stupid to run trains through it at 70mph. Even more so if there's no working warning system.

Yes it was stupid of the kid to cross, but I fail to see how it is in any way forseeable that a slow local train that was due at the time he crossed would in fact be a fast express that was due a bit after. It's a tragic accident, and there's the key word, accident. Should be left at that.
Ka pu te ruha ka hao te rangatahi.
#18
Quote by Taydr
If you have a pedestrian level-crossing, at a station, in the pouring rain, it's pretty damn stupid to run trains through it at 70mph. Even more so if there's no working warning system.

Yes it was stupid of the kid to cross, but I fail to see how it is in any way forseeable that a slow local train that was due at the time he crossed would in fact be a fast express that was due a bit after. It's a tragic accident, and there's the key word, accident. Should be left at that.

that's the important point.

It's reasonably foreseeable to be hit by a train if you attempt to cross a rail track while the train is in view. Same way it's reasonably foreseeable to be hit by a car if you step out in front of one. Yes, the car might avoid you, but trains are on a fixed track and cannot stop at the same rate a car can.

The reasonable person would have seen the risk and chosen not to cross. The fact that he chose to cross is only evidence to the fact that he acted unreasonably/negligently. He should have made sure it was slowing down before he crossed. But he didn't.

And as a result, a woman was injured.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#19
We already had a thread on this. But yeah, this world pretty much blows.
Quote by Robchappers
Ha ha love you to dude ;-)

Quote by fearofthemark
10/10 Slater is amazing

Fender Deluxe Roadhouse Strat
Ibanez RG4EXFM1
Washburn D46S
Dunlop Original Crybaby Wah
Fulltone OCD Overdrive
Boss SD-1 Overdrive
MXR M-148 Micro Chorus
Jet City JCA2112RC 20W
#20
In Zombie Russia, dead teenager sues woman.
Quote by denizenz
I'll logic you right in the thyroid.

Art & Lutherie
#21
Quote by Lemoninfluence
that's the important point.

It's reasonably foreseeable to be hit by a train if you attempt to cross a rail track while the train is in view. Same way it's reasonably foreseeable to be hit by a car if you step out in front of one. Yes, the car might avoid you, but trains are on a fixed track and cannot stop at the same rate a car can.

The reasonable person would have seen the risk and chosen not to cross. The fact that he chose to cross is only evidence to the fact that he acted unreasonably/negligently. He should have made sure it was slowing down before he crossed. But he didn't.

And as a result, a woman was injured.

That point is actually quite debatable. From what I can see on google maps, the track into and out of the station is pretty straight for a decent length, which means it could well have been possible to see a train with enough time still to cross, if it was the slower commuter train. It's certainly like that where I am, and the straight length isn't near as long. So even in the rain, it might have been possible to see a train at a point where the track could be safely crossed if it was the slower train, but not be able to see well enough to make out enough detail to see it's the faster train. Add the fact that it was the slower train due at that time, not the faster one, and I wouldn't say it's entirely unreasonable to cross. Nor is it entirely reasonable.
Ka pu te ruha ka hao te rangatahi.
#22
Thread from 3 weeks ago...


Anyway, I think some of you are commenting without reading the article. The woman was injured, why wouldn't she sue his estate? Thread title is misleading some of you.


Ashley
Just a sub-par guitar player..

Quote by darkstar2466
Let's make this the Pit's motto:

"Forever alone, together"



IS THIS FREEDOM, OR CONFINEMENT?! FREE MOSCOE_ESPANOL!!!
#23
Quote by Taydr
That point is actually quite debatable. From what I can see on google maps, the track into and out of the station is pretty straight for a decent length, which means it could well have been possible to see a train with enough time still to cross, if it was the slower commuter train. It's certainly like that where I am, and the straight length isn't near as long. So even in the rain, it might have been possible to see a train at a point where the track could be safely crossed if it was the slower train, but not be able to see well enough to make out enough detail to see it's the faster train. Add the fact that it was the slower train due at that time, not the faster one, and I wouldn't say it's entirely unreasonable to cross. Nor is it entirely reasonable.


Whether it was the fast or slow train is irrelevant. If theres a train in sight, you don't cross the tracks. Also, he was using an umbrealla, his vision couldn't have been considerablly obscured.
Just a sub-par guitar player..

Quote by darkstar2466
Let's make this the Pit's motto:

"Forever alone, together"



IS THIS FREEDOM, OR CONFINEMENT?! FREE MOSCOE_ESPANOL!!!
#24
Quote by Taydr
That point is actually quite debatable.

not really, list the possible outcomes of crossing a rail track and I'd be willing to bet that a large amount of people will mention being hit by a train as a potential outcome.

From what I can see on google maps, the track into and out of the station is pretty straight for a decent length, which means it could well have been possible to see a train with enough time still to cross, if it was the slower commuter train. It's certainly like that where I am, and the straight length isn't near as long. So even in the rain, it might have been possible to see a train at a point where the track could be safely crossed if it was the slower train, but not be able to see well enough to make out enough detail to see it's the faster train. Add the fact that it was the slower train due at that time, not the faster one, and I wouldn't say it's entirely unreasonable to cross. Nor is it entirely reasonable.

But the reasonable person would check that the train is slowing before crossing. He assumed, therefore it's his fault.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
Last edited by Lemoninfluence at Jan 13, 2012,
#25
Quote by son_of_bodom
Whether it was the fast or slow train is irrelevant. If theres a train in sight, you don't cross the tracks. Also, he was using an umbrealla, his vision couldn't have been considerablly obscured.

It's not irrelevant though. Assuming the slower train traveled at about 50mph, and with the given speed of 70mph for the faster, we can work out how much time it'd take to cover a given distance:

Converted to metres per second, the fast train is going about 31 metres per second, and the slower about 22 metres per second. This gives us the following times at the three following distances:

At 750m visability it would take 24 seconds for the fast train, 33 for the slow. Plenty of time to cross for both.

At 500m it would take 16 seconds for the fast, 22 for the slow. Enough time for both still, but pushing it with the fast.

At 250m it would take 8 seconds for the fast, 11 for the slow. Still enough time for the slow train if you take into account that by that point it will have slowed nearly to a stop, giving longer. But you'd be hit by the fast train.

For these I'm assuming it takes about 10 seconds to cross two lines, which is about what it takes me including going around the chicanes installed.

Quote by Lemoninfluence
not really, list the possible outcomes of crossing a rail track and I'd be willing to bet that a large amount of people will mention being hit by a train as a potential outcome.

Of course people will list it as a potential outcome, but just because a train is in view doesn't mean a particular person crossing could reasonably foresee being hit by it. As shown above.


But the reasonable person would check that the train is slowing before crossing. He assumed, therefore it's his fault.

That's also debatable. If a train is far enough off, one can cross even if it isn't slowing. There's also the possibility that the rain and his hurry affected his perception, thus leading to an inaccurate gauging of the oncoming trains speed. Even more likely if he perceived the train as the slower local one.
Ka pu te ruha ka hao te rangatahi.
#26
Quote by Taydr
Of course people will list it as a potential outcome, but just because a train is in view doesn't mean a particular person crossing could reasonably foresee being hit by it. As shown above.


that's not the test. something is reasonably foreseeable if the reasonable person (not a particular person) would have seen it as a potential outcome.

The fact that this person didn't is only evidence of the fact that he acted negligently.

This isn't debateable at all, it's in line with legal principles that have been developed over a long time by legal minds better than yours or mine.

The only thing that leads anyone to any other conclusion is irrationality arising from the absurdity of the scenario. However, according to logic and existing legal principles this decision makes sense.

That's also debatable. If a train is far enough off, one can cross even if it isn't slowing. There's also the possibility that the rain and his hurry affected his perception, thus leading to an inaccurate gauging of the oncoming trains speed. Even more likely if he perceived the train as the slower local one.

But they would have had to check if it was far enough away.

You can't change variables and use it as the basis of a debate. If a hypothetical reasonable person was in his position, with all of the variables as they were they would have checked whether it was safe to cross and had the taken reasonable care, they would have seen that the train was travelling too fast to stop.

He was negligent in his actions and as a result of those actions, a person was injured.

therefore he's liable for her injuries. It's simple, albeit a strange scenario.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#27
Quote by Lemoninfluence
that's the important point.

It's reasonably foreseeable to be hit by a train if you attempt to cross a rail track while the train is in view. Same way it's reasonably foreseeable to be hit by a car if you step out in front of one. Yes, the car might avoid you, but trains are on a fixed track and cannot stop at the same rate a car can.

The reasonable person would have seen the risk and chosen not to cross. The fact that he chose to cross is only evidence to the fact that he acted unreasonably/negligently. He should have made sure it was slowing down before he crossed. But he didn't.

And as a result, a woman was injured.

The only important thing I got out of that was

'Darwin Award Nominee!'

Unless he was planning on committing suicide, this is just stupid on his part. But sueing him?
Greedy girl!
Breakfast, Breakfast, it's great for us
We eat, we eat, we eat
That frozen meat
Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, it can't be beat
#28
Quote by Crazyedd123
Unless he was planning on committing suicide, this is just stupid on his part. But sueing him?
Greedy girl!

yeah because wanting your medical bills paid by the person who injured you is being greedy.

she had broken limbs. It's not as if she was just bruised a little bit.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#29
I'm sure he doesn't give a shit.

Also, I never thought of standing in front of a train.
Sing me to sleep.
#30
she should sue the train station who took down the warning lights.
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96