Drunk person loses leg to passing train

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gokul43201
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Train
AI Thread Summary
A Manhattan jury awarded $2.33 million to a man who lost his leg after stumbling onto subway tracks while intoxicated, ruling that he was 35 percent responsible for the accident. The discussion centers on the appropriateness of this award, with opinions divided on liability and the need for improved subway safety measures. Many argue that the plaintiff's intoxication and poor choices were the primary factors in the incident, suggesting that he should bear more responsibility. Others contend that the subway system has inherent design flaws that contributed to the accident, advocating for additional safety features to prevent such occurrences. The conversation also touches on broader issues of personal responsibility versus systemic safety, with some participants expressing frustration over the litigious culture that allows individuals to sue for their own reckless behavior. Overall, the debate highlights the complexities of assigning blame in accidents involving intoxication and public safety infrastructure.

What would you award Mr. Dibble in damages?

  • Total voters
    33
  • #51
Gokul43201 said:
I like something along these lines too, but there's the issue of a conflict of interests. As a juror, I'd be tempted to ask for a $273 quillion payment if that money will go into making my daily commute safer.

The reality is you can't get blood from a stone. That's the problem with a lot of these huge sum lawsuits anyway. It sounds wonderful, but if the money isn't there, nobody is ever going to see it anyway. If you make the sum more reasonable, someone is likely to get paid. Otherwise, all you do is sit around waiting for the bankruptcy court to sort it all out.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Moonbear said:
The reality is you can't get blood from a stone. That's the problem with a lot of these huge sum lawsuits anyway. It sounds wonderful, but if the money isn't there, nobody is ever going to see it anyway. If you make the sum more reasonable, someone is likely to get paid. Otherwise, all you do is sit around waiting for the bankruptcy court to sort it all out.
True. But the jury ought not to be determining the amount of punitive damages to award based on the likelihood that they will see some of it soon.
 
  • #53
Werg22 said:
The government should pay for an obviously useful security measure it does not take.

at what cost? fewer trains? fewer street cleaners?

we simply can't have everything that we want, or everything we think we need. we have to make choices. if people want to get drunk and sleep on the tracks, then they should be responsible for themselves.
 
  • #54
Proton Soup said:
at what cost? fewer trains? fewer street cleaners?

we simply can't have everything that we want, or everything we think we need. we have to make choices. if people want to get drunk and sleep on the tracks, then they should be responsible for themselves.

Precisely. Government shouldn't have to be a babysitter. There is a certain level of personal responsibility that people take, and that includes regulating your alcohol intake to a level that permits you to get home safely without stumbling onto a train track or into the middle of a busy street.
 
  • #55
safety as a function of wealth:

2z906dh.jpg
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top