Drunk person loses leg to passing train

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gokul43201
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Train
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a legal case in which a man lost his leg after stumbling onto subway tracks while intoxicated. Participants explore the implications of personal responsibility, the subway system's safety design, and the jury's decision regarding compensation. The conversation touches on legal, ethical, and safety considerations related to public transportation and individual accountability.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the injured man should bear full responsibility for his actions, suggesting that personal accountability should prevail in such cases.
  • Others propose that the subway system's design is flawed and that additional safety measures should be implemented to prevent similar accidents.
  • A few participants express skepticism about the fairness of the jury's compensation ruling, questioning whether the amount awarded adequately reflects the circumstances of the incident.
  • Some contributions highlight the potential for human error in the operation of subway trains, suggesting that operators should be more vigilant in preventing accidents.
  • There are discussions about the cultural implications of litigation and whether society should hold individuals accountable for their own poor choices.
  • Participants also debate the adequacy of current safety standards in public transportation systems, with references to international examples of better design practices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the extent of personal responsibility versus systemic accountability. While some advocate for individual responsibility, others emphasize the need for improved safety measures in the subway system. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include varying interpretations of legal liability, the complexity of human behavior in emergency situations, and differing opinions on what constitutes adequate safety measures in public transportation.

What would you award Mr. Dibble in damages?

  • Total voters
    33
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
7,213
Reaction score
25
What would you have awarded the plaintiff if you were on the jury (and why)?
NEW YORK (CNN) -- A Manhattan jury awarded $2.33 million to a man who lost his leg after drunkenly stumbling onto the path of an oncoming subway train.
...
The jury ruled Tuesday that Dibble was 35 percent responsible for the accident, so his monetary compensation was also reduced by 35 percent -- from $3,594,943 to $2,336,713.

Presumably, the medical (and other related) expenses came up to ~$3.6 million. Or does that include things like "psychological damage"? (I have no idea)

More here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/18/drunk.amputee.payout/index.html
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Wow, that's actually a toughie. I'm going to go for the middle...
 
I say nothing. Nobody else should be responsible for anothers stupidity. I hate that our culture is so litigious. With the right lawyer no one is responsible for their own actions any more.
 
It's a subway, the trains go through all of the time, it's not like the train was out wandering the streets.

I voted nothing.
 
More than $3.6M. There needs be heavy punitive damages for the transport authority for their dangerously flawed engineering.

More accessible, intrinsically safe train station:

800px-KLIA_Aerotrain2.jpg
 
Sounds like a fair triel to me.

Subway had enough time to stop. He should have stopped.

If I see a drunk guy jump onto the road, and I'm able to escape this scenario without injury (stopping or changing lanes), then I would do so. I wouldn't run him over, like some people here are implying.
 
JasonRox said:
Subway had enough time to stop. He should have stopped.
But that is only if the driver was able to see him. just because 'theoretically" the train would have had time to stop based on when the drunk fell and where the train was doesn't matter. How visible was the guy? Was he wearing clothing that blended in with the tracks? I'm assuming from this that the train was not stopping so was going very fast. You have to take into consideration that the driver is human, apparently he didn't see him. At the speed of a subway train, would the driver have had to see the guy at the exact moment he fell in order to stop? At that distance is that realistic?

Obviously the train driver did not see him.
 
signerror said:
There needs be heavy punitive damages for the transport authority for their dangerously flawed engineering.
There are better ways to waste money for public transportations than ensuring drunken people can't throw themselves under trains. Public transportation needs in depth development, especially in the US. I voted nothing.

Next time a person will bypass whatever security system you engineered, because he wanted to commit suicide at that time, how would you feel if his lawyer sued you because the system could be so easily bypassed ? When will the "suing other people for money, disregarding his own responsibility"-frenzy stop ?
 
  • #10
humanino said:
There are better ways to waste money for public transportations than ensuring drunken people can't throw themselves under trains. Public transportation needs in depth development, especially in the US. I voted nothing.

Next time a person will bypass whatever security system you engineered, because he wanted to commit suicide at that time, how would you feel if his lawyer sued you because the system could be so easily bypassed ? When will the "suing other people for money, disregarding his own responsibility"-frenzy stop ?

I think you're missing the distinction, that this was an unintentional injury. This is a design flaw of the NYC subway. In the double-door people mover in the Malaysian airport I showed (or the one in Tokyo-Narita, or Atlanta-Hartsfield, or others), it is not possible to accidentally fall onto the tracks. Likewise, balconies have railings, and stairways have handbars. Text editors have 'autosave' features. This is part of a soundly designed system: you anticipate what could go wrong, and prevent it.

Frankly, this isn't a major public health hazard, but it's not a particularly expensive one to fix either. And double-doors really bring peace of mind, too. I get vertigo every time I'm near an open rail line. I shouldn't have read that Anna Karenina book.
 
  • #11
signerror said:
I think you're missing the distinction, that this was an unintentional injury. This is a design flaw of the NYC subway. In the double-door people mover in the Malaysian airport I showed (or the one in Tokyo-Narita, or Atlanta-Hartsfield, or others), it is not possible to accidentally fall onto the tracks. Likewise, balconies have railings, and stairways have handbars. Text editors have 'autosave' features. This is part of a soundly designed system: you anticipate what could go wrong, and prevent it.
No I don't miss it and I am quite familiar with this system. The newest section in Paris has those kind of doors. During some weeks, there was a maniac in Paris pushing people under the trains in older sections. Nobody ever even thought of suing the train company because of the design. I think you are missing my point that people should not permanently be considered even more stupid than normal kids when designing systems. You are also missing the point that there are better ways to spend money for public transportation.

I was conveying that, following the idea that you can sue the train driver or company in general in the case at hand, you can also sue them when a safety system is in place, but you manage to bypass it. Just claim that you were out of your mind at this point, thus irresponsible.
 
  • #12
I voted for $0, because I am of the mind that people should be responsible for their own incompetence, and this accident was clearly a result of poor choices made by the man involved.

I also, however, agree that there should be additional safety systems in place, to prevent something like this from happening. Would the results of this poll be different if it were someone truly mentally handicapped? It is conceivable to me that a similar accident could occur through no fault of the victim, and, as such, new safety codes should be implemented.
 
  • #13
I vote they amputate his other leg for being a dumbass.

Hmmm, I drank myself stupid and then wandered around on my own and got run over by a train. NOT MY FAULT!
 
  • #14
One of my legs can be worth 2.3 million?!
 
  • #15
signerror said:
While they're at it, NYC might want to take some design tips from the Russians.

maybe after we adopt Uncle Joe's version of the Works Progress Administration, we can.


as for stopping trains in the middle of nowhere by tossing a passed-out bum on the tracks, i don't think that's an idea we want to encourage.
 
  • #16
I don't know the current laws, but at one time in California, if someone was drunk and walking in the middle of the highway, in the middle of the desert, in the middle of the night, and you hit him, you were probably partially liable. It actually happened! The ruling was that the driver was not in the center of the lane - not that he was out of his lane, but he wasn't perfectly centered - so he was assigned some percentage of guilt.

In this case, it appears to me that the subway stations are inherently dangerous in that anyone could easily trip or fall and end up on the tracks, so I can understand the ruling. It sounds like the subway operators are supposed to allow for this sort of thing but this one simply didn't realize what he was seeing on the tracks. It was a case of human error that was avoidable.

Lawsuits like this help to ensure that the metro system maintains rigid safety standards. Was this a case of the driver being too quick to make a false assumption about safety? Sounds that way to me.
 
  • #17
NeoDevin said:
I also, however, agree that there should be additional safety systems in place, to prevent something like this from happening. Would the results of this poll be different if it were someone truly mentally handicapped? It is conceivable to me that a similar accident could occur through no fault of the victim, and, as such, new safety codes should be implemented.

But you can surely make the same argument about anything. Why not have walls built along roads, with gates at crossings that only open when the traffic has stopped? Why not have such safety systems as normal train stations, as well as underground stations? In fact, at least here in London, the underground stations are safer, since they have so called 'suicide pits' which enable a body to fall under the track (though whether they'd survive the live rails is another issue).

Whilst safety is of course important, you can't go around wrapping everyone in cotton wool, lest the one fool decides to put his life at risk.
 
  • #18
The driver said he thought the guy was an inert object, so he saw him; case closed.

people falling or jumping on the lines is something the drivers should be aware of. Responsibility is on both individual and transport athourity staff. In this case both were responsible, how ever the driver could have easily prevented the accident.
 
  • #19
Ivan Seeking said:
I don't know the current laws, but at one time in California, if someone was drunk and walking in the middle of the highway, in the middle of the desert, in the middle of the night, and you hit him, you were probably partially liable. It actually happened! The ruling was that the driver was not in the center of the lane - not that he was out of his lane, but he wasn't perfectly centered - so he was assigned some percentage of guilt.
In the case of the train drive though, I think you will find that he was perfectly centered on his lane! :biggrin:
 
  • #20
I voted (hic) more than $3.6 million.
 
  • #21
But if you are drunk and hurt someone like in a car accident, then they will not be so forgiving.
 
  • #22
what said:
But if you are drunk and hurt someone like in a car accident, then they will not be so forgiving.

That might be a good point if it were relevant to the opening post.
 
  • #23
Cyrus said:
I vote they amputate his other leg for being a dumbass.

Hmmm, I drank myself stupid and then wandered around on my own and got run over by a train. NOT MY FAULT!

:smile: You're talking about a .18 BAC. This guy's problems are his own fault.

Had the subway company sued the drunk and the bartender for the damage to the subway system and the emotional stress placed on the subway driver, I might have considered the bartenders partially responsible. I think there would have been obvious signs the guy had too much to drink way before he reached .18 BAC.

But, I'm not sure about that. It depends on the witnesses in the bar. In fact, what happened to this guy's friends? Did they not notice because they were as trashed as him?

At about 0.14, the person needs medical evaluation and at about 0.20, the person needs medical assistance. (Alcohol and Your Body). The article doesn't mention the person's weight, but a hockey game is probably about 2 hours? A 150 pound male would have to drink about 8 beers during the game to get to 0.18. (BAC Calculator)
 
Last edited:
  • #24
cristo said:
But you can surely make the same argument about anything. Why not have walls built along roads, with gates at crossings that only open when the traffic has stopped? Why not have such safety systems as normal train stations, as well as underground stations? In fact, at least here in London, the underground stations are safer, since they have so called 'suicide pits' which enable a body to fall under the track (though whether they'd survive the live rails is another issue).

Whilst safety is of course important, you can't go around wrapping everyone in cotton wool, lest the one fool decides to put his life at risk.

This is a good argument.

How many lives would be saved if the interstate had streetlamps for the entire interstate system instead of just high traffic portions? How much money would it cost to save each life? Or, the more difficult, but unavoidable question (the one that gets punitive damages tacked onto a lawsuit verdict), how much is each life worth - is it sometimes better to accept that a "design flaw" is going to cost a certain number of lives?

The Pinto case makes for an interesting ethics subject, but just how much more were car buyers willing to chip to save someone else's life via a higher price? (And the odds would suggest that it would be someone else to die in a car crash, not them).
 
  • #25
Here's a Drake-equation-like puzzle, for those still pondering this:

If the train driver had slammed the brakes to avoid the drunk on the tracks, how many drunks in the train would have lost balance and broken their noses (or ribs or skulls...)?
 
  • #26
It's not due to a design flaw that the driver didn't stop. It was deemed to be a misjudgement on the driver's part, not because of lack of a saftey barrier.
 
  • #27
neu said:
It's not due to a design flaw that the driver didn't stop. It was deemed to be a misjudgement on the driver's part, not because of lack of a saftey barrier.

Shifting responsibility from an entirely automated safety system to human operating procedures is a design "feature". A certain amount of mistaken decisions are inherent in relying upon the driver to make a decision in seconds, at most. The probability of mistaken decisions should be treated the same as the probability of mechanical failure, system malfunction, etc.

As to any injuries sustained by the drunks on the subway if the driver did slam on the brakes, the subway company might have been liable if the drunk really were an inert object. The drunk and the drinking establishment might have been liable in the actual case where the drunk was lying on the tracks (I just can't imagine a jury assigning liability to the subway company if the driver did slam on the brakes to keep from running over someone). Once again, shifting responsibility to human decisions is an imperfect solution. One action, but two completely different results depending upon whether the threat were real or bogus.

Per Dram Shop liability, a drinking establishment can be held for third party deaths or injuries resulting from an overly inebriated customer (drunk driver, etc). The drinking establishment just can't be held liable for death or injuries to the customer, himself.

If I were one of the lawyers for the subway company, I would have trotted this out as a precedent for this case. The company might have some liability if a drunk stumbled and pushed a sober customer under the train, but they surely have no liability for any injuries sustained by the drunk.

Edit: Actually, a few states hold the drinking establishment liable for injuries/death of the customer, himself, so that might not work. (Dram Shop Liability).
 
Last edited:
  • #28
If someone trips and falls onto a road, and you hit that person with your car, you would almost certainly be liable; esp if you had time to stop. A person doesn't have to be drunk for this to happen.

The fact that this guy was drunk is probably why the metro system wasn't assigned 90% liability or more. The working assumption with many posts seems to be that it was his fault that he fell. But does that really matter? Isn't it possible for this to happen to anyone whether they're drunk or not?
 
Last edited:
  • #29
I see stories about every week (since I'm in media coverage at work) about people getting hit by trains. There was a man who was walking down the tracks scratching his lottery tickets. Apparently he was so focused on figuring out the tickets that he ignored/didn't hear the horn blowing as the train hit him.

And then there were those two girls who put their legs over some tracks while sunbathing...
 
  • #30
Ivan Seeking said:
If someone trips and falls onto a road, and you hit that person with your car, you would almost certainly be liable; esp if you had time to stop. A person doesn't have to be drunk for this to happen.

The fact that this guy was drunk is probably why the metro system wasn't assigned 90% liability or more. The working assumption with many posts seems to be that it was his fault that he fell. But does that really matter? Isn't it possible for this to happen to anyone whether they're drunk or not?

That's true, but it takes more than a possibility of it happening. I don't know what was presented in court, but it really depends upon whether the system in place to mitigate the risk was acceptable for the probability and severity of the risk. Having a fatality isn't proof that the system in place was unreasonable or else you'd have lawsuits against the government every time a pedestrian was struck by a car on a dark road.

Here's an article (from a very popular newspaper, none the less) that gives a little more detail: Drunk Rides Gravy Train

One thing that might have hurt the subway company was this:

Smiley said Moore {the subway driver} had testified at the deposition that he couldn't "stop every time he sees garbage," because "there's garbage all over the place," but NYC Transit rules call for the motorman to stop the train if there's a mass on the tracks.
(bolded portion added by me, since the entire quote gets italicized).

Having a mitigation measure in place that was so unrealistic that it was never adhered to certainly couldn't have helped them. It's a measure clearly designed to shift responsibility and blame; not a measure designed to improve safety. They would have been better off covering situations like this in training classes while having no absolute rules on how the driver should respond.