Drunk person loses leg to passing train

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gokul43201
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Train
Click For 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
  • #31
BobG said:
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.

For the most part, you do have a lawsuit every time a pedestrian is struck by a car; but against the driver not the government.

Also, the driver is almost always at fault by definition - the pedestrian always has the right of way. And even if the driver had no time to stop, he will still likely be assigned some percentage of guilt [at least in States like California].

Even in the case of the "drunk on a desert highway" story, the driver WAS at fault. If he had been watching the road, one would think that he could have swerved and avoided hitting the man in the road. I didn't understand the "center of the lane" bit, but I can see the argument that he wasn't watching the road as he should have been.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Ivan Seeking said:
For the most part, you do have a lawsuit every time a pedestrian is struck by a car; but against the driver not the government.

Also, the driver is almost always at fault by definition - the pedestrian always has the right of way.

Why don't they sue the automaker instead? Better vehicle design would be a lot more effective at reducing deaths/injuries than relying on the decisions and actions of the pedestrians and drivers.

And, actually, in most localities, the pedestrian doesn't have the right of way when they violate traffic signals, jaywalk, walk along limited access roadways (interstates, for example). In some localities, the driver can sue the pedestrian for damage to his car if the pedestrian violated traffic laws.

In fact, it's usually pretty darn hard just to get over the fence so you can cross the interstate. I wound up hanging from one of those fences by the skin between two of my fingers. That really sucked.
 
  • #33
If there is so much garbage on the tracks that the drivers can't tell the difference between a body and a bag, then I would say there is a legitimate safety issue given that anyone could fall on the tracks.
 
  • #34
  • #35
BobG said:
Why don't they sue the automaker instead? Better vehicle design would be a lot more effective at reducing deaths/injuries than relying on the decisions and actions of the pedestrians and drivers.

The driver is always responsible for the safe operation of his vehicle. You are suggesting that we deflect personal responbility and blame everything on companies and the government. The train operator is lucky that he didn't get sued personally.

And, actually, in most localities, the pedestrian doesn't have the right of way when they violate traffic signals, jaywalk, walk along limited access roadways (interstates, for example). In some localities, the driver can sue the pedestrian for damage to his car if the pedestrian violated traffic laws.

Not where I've lived. In the US, if you hit someone in a crosswalk, red light or not, you will be sued [I don't care where you live]. Some percentage of guilt would probably be assigned to the pedestrian.
 
  • #36
I was once towing a very large generator used for the mobile CAT scanners [way back when they first came out]. It was a rental generator that I had just picked up the day before. It had two axles and heavy-truck tires and rims - a real monster. I was bopping along on the 91 FWY, near Long Beach, Ca. when I noticed a bit of fishtailing from the generator. I checked my mirrors and everything looked okay, and after a minute it calmed down, so I assumed that it was hit by a gust of wind. A few minutes laters I noticed some guy who was signalling me to pull over. So I stopped and got out, and he starts yelling "you lost a wheel!". I checked and sure enough, one wheel and tire were gone. I could see that all of the lug bolts had sheered off. I looked at the guy and said something involving several profanities, and then asked where it went. My heart sank into my stomach when he said that it had jumped the center divider and hit a car on the other side of the freeway. This wheel probably weighed at least 100 pounds!

I unhitched and left the generator on the side of the road, and went back to find the accident scene. It was probably the longest ride of my life. A few miles back I found a car pulled over on the side of the road, but everyone was okay. The wheel had hit the car on the crossmember just above the windshield. If it had been six inches lower it probably would have killed at least a couple of people in the car. According to a number accounts, it then bounced about fifty feet into the air and went off along the side of the freeway.

Was I at fault? The bolts had simply sheered off presumably because they had not be tightened properly. Keep in mind that this was a rental generator that I had picked up one day before this happened. And this didn't come from U-Haul; it was all high-dollar stuff.

The answer is yes. I was driving the vehicle so I was responsible.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
Ivan Seeking said:
The driver is always responsible for the safe operation of his vehicle. You are suggesting that we deflect personal responbility and blame everything on companies and the government. The train operator is lucky that he didn't get sued personally.

Not that lucky. He died of a stroke.

And, actually, I'm not suggesting we always deflect personal responsibility on companies and the government. I'm just saying that the system that the humans are operating in should be considered, as well.

Human error is unavoidable. Either the risk should be acceptable and a person shouldn't be sued provided their actions were reasonable or else the risk is unacceptable and a better system should be used.
 
  • #38
BobG said:
Not that lucky. He died of a stroke.
Can the driver's family sue Dibble for exacerbating the driver's heart condition?
 
  • #39
Ivan Seeking said:
Not where I've lived. In the US, if you hit someone in a crosswalk, red light or not, you will be sued [I don't care where you live]. Some percentage of guilt would probably be assigned to the pedestrian.


This would be true on a military base, as well, but the speed limits are so slow that you could almost always expect the driver to be able to see a pedestrian ahead of time. A pedestrian in dark clothes on a moonless night on a rural interstate is a completely different story (or at least should be).

Sometimes, the pedestrian is an idiot - and, sometimes, potential subway riders are too drunk to be allowed out on a public street.
 
  • #40
Gokul43201 said:
Can the driver's family sue Dibble for exacerbating the driver's heart condition?

He's certainly got enough cash for it to be worth it. Or, at least he will years down the road if the company's appeal is overturned.

Heck, by time this is over, the economic crisis will have been solved for at least a dozen lawyers.
 
  • #41
OAQfirst said:
And then there were those two girls who put their legs over some tracks while sunbathing...

What a strange coincidence. NPR had a piece about them on this evening's show.

Destiny and Rachel

Wow! That's about all I can say.
 
  • #42
BobG said:
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.

What are you on about? You think this is a good point?

Perhaps this explains why your not a lawyer.

You watch too much Ally McBeal
 
  • #43
neu said:
What are you on about? You think this is a good point?

Perhaps this explains why your not a lawyer.

You watch too much Ally McBeal

But I spent the night in a Holiday Inn Express.
 
  • #44
I voted less than 1 million. I'm currently in NYC (sorry Astronuc and Doc Al, the dates of the trip kept changing, so I couldn't let you know ahead to meet up) and have seen this on the news, along with the stories about the once again tabled plans to update the subway system with those double-doors mentioned earlier in the thread because once again there isn't enough money to do the updating. These improvements were supposed to be built into a new line that they keep starting to build tunnels for and then shuttering them every time the economy falters and money dries up.

Yes, the conductor is partially at fault for not attempting to stop. However, I think the person who was so inebriated that they fell onto the tracks and couldn't roll out of the way in time (rarely is there only one track at a station that you can't get out of the way of an oncoming train should you land on the tracks...third rails notwithstanding) is mostly to blame for his own actions and bad decisions. Subway platforms are not narrow balance beams, they have plenty of room for one to stagger about without landing on tracks, big yellow lines showing you where it's too close to stand (not that anybody pays attention to those), and late at night, there are no crowds to navigate.

The other issue is how did they arrive at the $3.6 million figure to then cut by 30%? Since the stupidity of the drunken person was, to me, the major contributing factor to the accident (if he wasn't drunk, he wouldn't have been on the tracks in the first place), I think that writes off any argument for things like payment for pain and suffering or lost wages type damages, and should limit the liability of the subway conductor/city to a portion of the cost of medical bills.

Too many people want to make a point by awarding huge sums in lawsuits, but all that does is take money away from actually fixing the problem. If they instead said the city should be required to pay $2 million into a fund to improve safety systems at subway platforms, maybe one platform could introduce such a system and start the ball rolling. Considering how many people travel on the subway every day in the city, and that the vast majority of them manage to not fall onto tracks, it's really hard to be sympathetic to the person who does when it was his own choice to become inebriated to the point of losing control.
 
  • #45
Mooonbearrrr! :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!)
 
  • #46
One might argue about the driver's recklessness about failing to stop when seeing the "object," despite what he thought it might have been... but could he truly be deemed responsible for the recklessness of another?

I agree with Moonbear's statement. So much money is awarded "apologetically" to cases like this, but what about the money needed to fix the problem? If the subway truly needs some form of safeguarding against the tracks, they need some financial boost, somewhere. Instead, people like this get the winnings, along with the chance to say they'd engaged in a huge legal battle with a major public company... because they were drunk??

I also understand that there are regional laws against jaywalking of any sort. Here in Texas, it is majorly frowned upon, and the offender, knowing well that he or she was walking in traffic, would not have any hope of winning a case like that. Much like the lady who sued McDonald's after burning herself with apparently scaldingly hot coffee...
 
  • #47
signerror said:
While they're at it, NYC might want to take some design tips from the Russians.

I once read that the subway stations were made so luxurious as a means to spread propaganda about the wealth of the nation to the millions of Russian workers who took the subway every day.

About the question: why does it matter that much that he was drunk? Is it inconceivable that someone trips on the rails without being drunk? In the latter case, would it be the design's or the person's fault? Accidents happen, drunk or not, and the facility with which they can when it comes to subways is ample reason to improve the design and sue whoever is responsible for the lack of action in this regard.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
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!

Lol, watch him use his other leg to get onto the track again.

Governments should not pay for other people's stupidity.
 
  • #49
The government should pay for an obviously useful security measure it does not take.
 
  • #50
Moonbear said:
Too many people want to make a point by awarding huge sums in lawsuits, but all that does is take money away from actually fixing the problem. If they instead said the city should be required to pay $2 million into a fund to improve safety systems at subway platforms, maybe one platform could introduce such a system and start the ball rolling.
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.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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