My thought on the Amtrak one is simple - they had no business being there... it'd be like a bunch of teenagers breaking into a chemistry lab and starting to play with stuff only to end up with severe chemical burns and/or dead...
Okay, I'll put it to you this way..
There was no sign of any sort to indicate there were dangerous live wires that were exposed and could endanger life and limb. Just because you are a property owner does not mean that you are exempt from causing direct harm to people who may walk across it or yes, take a seat on it to look at the view. It would be the same as if you had a backyard pool and did not fence your yard and a child drowned after trespassing on your property and fell into the pool.
As a property owner, you have a responsibility to ensure the safety of your property. It is why I don't put spikes on my driveway to stab any Jehovah's Witnesses who trespass on my land to knock on my door. Nor do I leave or allow something I know to be dangerous lying about with the thought that if you're there without permission, then it's your own fault.
Then of course there was Amtrak's behaviour during this case.. As
some train fanatics posted on their site about it, the judge's opinion of Amtrak was not positive at all.. they offered little to no defense and instead sought to demean and humiliate the two young men, one of whom is now scarred for life, because Amtrak's lawyers argued they were apparently too stupid to know that they would have had live wires inside the carts and they would have been in danger for sitting on top of the carts to look at the view of the city skyline because they had been on a train once.
The jury could have divided the blame between the young men and the railroad companies, but after the trial in October 2006, it ruled solely in favor of the young men.
The men, Jeffrey Klein and Brett Birdwell, both 17 and both from Stroudsburg at the time, were severely burned by a high voltage wire when they climbed on top of a railroad car parked near New Holland Avenue in August 2002. They were in town visiting Klein's mother.
Klein suffered serious burns over 75 percent of his body and remains permanently scarred and disabled with limited use of his left hand. Birdwell suffered serious burns to 12 percent of his body.
"The evidence of Jeffrey Klein's pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement and humiliation was compelling," Stengel wrote in his opinion. "There was strong and persuasive evidence of his horrific injuries and the long and painful treatment he has endured."
Stengel wrote that the jury was instructed to make "a fair assessment" based on the evidence. And, the judge noted that, "it certainly did."
The amounts were determined by their medical bills and by calculating lost future earnings, pain, suffering and loss of life pleasures, and punitive damages.
"One simple truth of this case is that there was more than sufficient evidence presented in support of each claim," Stengel wrote. "Another simple truth of this case is that Amtrak and Norfolk Southern really presented no evidence."
During the trial, Stengel wrote, the railroad companies' attorneys "demeaned" the two young men "for their lack of intelligence, judgment and common sense in choosing to climb to the top of the boxcar."
"Yet, they attributed to them a superior intelligence, a refined sense of deductive logic and an educated sense of thermodynamics," based on Klein's one train ride and occasional car trips along New Holland Avenue, Stengel wrote.
"They argued that Birdwell should have been equally savvy because of his one subway ride at a much younger age," Stengel wrote, adding, "These were silly arguments."
"The verdict was against the great weight of the defendants' bluster," Stengel wrote. "It was not against the great weight of the evidence."
The young men's attorney explained after the verdict that the case wasn't about the teenagers' admitted trespassing, but was about the railroad knowing there was a hidden high voltage hazard on the property.
To be clear, there is no evidence that they broke into a train yard. They apparently saw the train carts on train tracks that were owned by the company and climbed on top of one to look at the view from it. There were no signs anywhere that there was live wire connected to the carts.
I think before you pass judgement on this case,
you read the ruling given by the judge in the case. It might make things a bit clearer and you might understand why Amtrak lost their case. For example, Amtrak had argued that the boys should have known better that live electricity could arc causing death or severe injury. As the judge noted, Amtrak's record in that regard provided the best defense, as Amtrak regularly and repeatedly trained their employees on how to deal with the wires in their carts and their employees had regularly and ongoing training about the risk of electrocution but they did not think that a train in a highly urban area, with many schools nearby and open and with clear evidence of pedestrian traffic and even graffiti on the trains would require a sign that there were live wires on the trains? The judge notes, if it is so obvious, then why are they continuously training their employees (with over 8 hours of training required a year for their most experienced staff members) about it but they assume and believe that children and general passerby pedestrians who may cut across the track or even touch the trains would automatically know there were live wires?
The judge held that Amtrak knew children often walked on those tracks and they had even received reports of it from their conductors but they failed to provide any signage that live wire was a danger to anyone who was there. Yet they expect that their trained and experience staff need over 8 hours per year of training to avoid those live wires but they assume that children and pedestrians would just know of the dangers automatically? As the judge noted in his findings, there was a "plethora of evidence" that there was a public safety risk and a risk to children.
The tracks in question were not fenced and no sign about private property (by the looks of it) and no sign that there were live wires that were exposed, it was near a busy intersection and had a few schools in the vicinity with clear evidence that children often walked along or played near those tracks. The tracks in question were also for diesel trains and diesel trains were known to be parked there.. These carts were left there for days, and Amtrak did this with full knowledge of children walking and playing on those unfenced and unmarked tracks, with carts that had ladders that would have made it easy for children to climb. It's akin to the law requiring that you fence your backyard pool so kids cannot fall and drown in them..
The $24million dollar awarded to the two plaintiffs in this case were awarded by a jury, by the way.
Amtrak failed in their duty to ensure public safety. When you read through the judge's ruling, it becomes clear how.
