Who should pay this lady compensation?
Discussion
Greg66 said:
If the impact of the train had caused it to derail, passengers on the train who were consequently injured would be entitled to claim against him: that sort of injury is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of walking in front of a train.
If a bystander was operating heavy machinery and was distracted by the sound of the impact, causing him to be injured by the machinery he was operating, I'd think that is less reasonably foreseeable.
If someone was listening to the radio and was distracted by a report of the incident, and fell downstairs injuring themselves, that is no less or more reasonably foreseeable than the plant operator, but is too remote from the incident to be recovered from the defendant.
On that scale, I'd put this incidence somewhere between the first and second examples, right at the outer limits of what is reasonably foreseeable.
Technically, they would make a claim against the train company which would be insured, as has always happened with derailments.If a bystander was operating heavy machinery and was distracted by the sound of the impact, causing him to be injured by the machinery he was operating, I'd think that is less reasonably foreseeable.
If someone was listening to the radio and was distracted by a report of the incident, and fell downstairs injuring themselves, that is no less or more reasonably foreseeable than the plant operator, but is too remote from the incident to be recovered from the defendant.
On that scale, I'd put this incidence somewhere between the first and second examples, right at the outer limits of what is reasonably foreseeable.
Unless the 'victim' can show that the 'buffoon' was only there due to rail company negligence she is seeking damages from the right person.
mrmr96 said:
Nothing. Trains are delayed for all sorts of reasons. You can also get in a traffic jam for any reason or "no reason". Being late due to a late train requires compensation? Don't be daft!
It's not my idea. " Customers delayed on East Coast services between 30 and 59 minutes will receive compensation of at least 50% of the cost of a single ticket or at least 50% of the cost of either portion of a return ticket"
So East Coast lose out several thousand pounds because of a suicide. Should East Coast sue the estate of the dead guy?
MX7 said:
mrmr96 said:
Nothing. Trains are delayed for all sorts of reasons. You can also get in a traffic jam for any reason or "no reason". Being late due to a late train requires compensation? Don't be daft!
It's not my idea. " Customers delayed on East Coast services between 30 and 59 minutes will receive compensation of at least 50% of the cost of a single ticket or at least 50% of the cost of either portion of a return ticket"
So East Coast lose out several thousand pounds because of a suicide. Should East Coast sue the estate of the dead guy?
paddyhasneeds said:
rs1952 said:
Tough perhaps on the woman concerned, but here's a novel thought - when something unpleasant happens to you, it isn't necessarily somebody else's fault 
So taking that to its logical conclusion, you're walking along minding your own business, a car drives into you, a body flies into you, whatever, and you're unable to work for a period of time due to your injuries.You have no income so presumably can't pay the bills, maybe the rent, maybe the mortgage.
Would you sit back and simply "get over it"?
rs1952 said:
I suppose I'm a little old fashioned, in that if I should happen to go base over apex over a raised paving stone, I still curse myself for failing to see it coming, rather than run of crying to a PI solicitor and sue the Council.
That's not quite the same though is it, and I agree, I'm not a fan of that sort of thing.You're walking past a house and the householder is up a ladder cleaning the windows. As you pass they fall and someone land on you damaging your neck/back meaning you're unable to work.
Would you "get over it"?
rs1952 said:
I suppose I'm a little old fashioned, in that if I should happen to go base over apex over a raised paving stone, I still curse myself for failing to see it coming, rather than run of crying to a PI solicitor and sue the Council.
So do I. And I fully expect at least one person to point and laugh. However, of my arm were broken and I was kept off work because some absolute idiot's head hit me at high velocity I would, without a doubt, make what is left of that idiot cover any genuine financial loss that I incurred due to their stupidity.
What we don't know is if the last is also claiming money for emotional distress, she can go and suck eggs for that malarkey.
Running across working train tracks without looking isn't an accident it's an act of rank stupidity.
rs1952 said:
There are several things we don't know in this story. Firstly, it says "crossing the tracks" - was it an authorised crossing point? We don't know. If so, he clearly failed to look where he was going, or see what was coming, and paid the ultimate penalty. If it wasn't, he was either taking a chance and came second in the luck stakes, or he was trying to top himself.
Secondly, people who use trains as a short cut to meet St Peter usually stand still and let it happen or jump in front of the things - the article doesn't go into enough detail to be able to say with any certainty, but it sounds like an accident to me.
As you say it's hard to tell although you can be sure that in Chicago they do everything they can to keep people from being in front of trains.Secondly, people who use trains as a short cut to meet St Peter usually stand still and let it happen or jump in front of the things - the article doesn't go into enough detail to be able to say with any certainty, but it sounds like an accident to me.
rs1952 said:
Whether or not it was an accident or a suicide, in neither case is the soon-to-be dear departed likely to get out his slide rule and work out where various bits of his body are likely to end up in the aftermath.
Any insurance company who's head is not in the clouds should be treating this as an Act of God or, to use the vernacular mentioned earlier, a s
t happens scenario.
Not if he was somewhere he shouldn't have been and it's hard to believe that he should have been walking around the railway tracks. It doesn't matter if he could have predicted the precise damage, you have to know that wandering about the railway tracks means you might get hit by a train and that will cause damage, even if you can't predict what that damage would beAny insurance company who's head is not in the clouds should be treating this as an Act of God or, to use the vernacular mentioned earlier, a s
t happens scenario. rs1952 said:
Tough perhaps on the woman concerned, but here's a novel thought - when something unpleasant happens to you, it isn't necessarily somebody else's fault
Get over it
Oh dear, how pathetic that you can't have a simple exchange of views without this sort of comment. If you knew me you would know that I am the last person to look for people to blame, I'm fully subscribed to the view that sometimes sGet over it
t happens. But I have also been suffered a lot of pain as a result of an accident that was someone else's fault. And believe me, if that happens, if someone does something stupid and you suffer serious consequences as a result you do want some form of compensation. I read this situation as being the consequences of someone's stupidity, not a st happens scenario.Gerald
I see where you're coming from, but don't forget that in the USA they have a very different idea about railways and safety then we do. Whilst we are currently busy fencing off platform ends on "elf'n safety" grounds, the Yanks are quite happy for trains to run unfenced down the middle of the street in some cases. Whilst I doubt that an Amtrack train would be doing 70 down the middle of a street, the facts are that we don't know what the precise circumstances were from the article. so all we can do is guess. You guess one way, I may guess another
I suppose my attitude to this sort of thing is soured because of the compensation culture we have in this country these days, when everything has to be somebody else's fault. Let me give you an example of something I witnessed a few years ago:
I was driving along minding my own business when a "freak" accident happened in front of me. There were a couple of girls, I'd estimate about 9 or 10, in charge of a medium sized crossbreed dog (had a lot of labrador in it but was too small for a pedigree). It suddenly saw a cat, slipped its lead and flew across the road. Unfortunately, flew was the operative word because it was hit by a car coming the other way, driven by a Welsh pensioner.
The dog rolled over a few times, got up and scarpered on three legs up an alley. The two girls were in hysterics. I stopped, the Welsh pensioner stopped and, unfortunately for him, a passing Plod Top Brass (judging by the uniform) also witnessed the accident and stopped. Names and addresses were exchanged (me included as I was a witness), a passing woman and me took the girls home to find the dog had got there first and a vet appointment had already been booked, and the Welsh pensioner drove off.
A couple of months later I got a letter from a firm of lawyers specialising in PI claims. This was apparently claiming for "emotional trauma" and a damaged bumper. There was sod all "emotional" wrong with him when I spoke to him, and there was also sod all wrong with the bumper (well, nothing you could see when I looked at it, perhaps there was a minor scratch from the dog's collar studs?).
As far as I was concerned, "justice" had already been meted out. The girls, as I said, were hysterical after what happened to their dog and were likely to be very much more careful in future. The dog had an injured leg. This just hit the mutt, nothing else.
Its lucky I never saw him again because, if I had, I would have got put on for at least ABH for him trying to pull this stunt. Suffice to say, the PI specialists were told to "go forth and multpily"
I see where you're coming from, but don't forget that in the USA they have a very different idea about railways and safety then we do. Whilst we are currently busy fencing off platform ends on "elf'n safety" grounds, the Yanks are quite happy for trains to run unfenced down the middle of the street in some cases. Whilst I doubt that an Amtrack train would be doing 70 down the middle of a street, the facts are that we don't know what the precise circumstances were from the article. so all we can do is guess. You guess one way, I may guess another
I suppose my attitude to this sort of thing is soured because of the compensation culture we have in this country these days, when everything has to be somebody else's fault. Let me give you an example of something I witnessed a few years ago:
I was driving along minding my own business when a "freak" accident happened in front of me. There were a couple of girls, I'd estimate about 9 or 10, in charge of a medium sized crossbreed dog (had a lot of labrador in it but was too small for a pedigree). It suddenly saw a cat, slipped its lead and flew across the road. Unfortunately, flew was the operative word because it was hit by a car coming the other way, driven by a Welsh pensioner.
The dog rolled over a few times, got up and scarpered on three legs up an alley. The two girls were in hysterics. I stopped, the Welsh pensioner stopped and, unfortunately for him, a passing Plod Top Brass (judging by the uniform) also witnessed the accident and stopped. Names and addresses were exchanged (me included as I was a witness), a passing woman and me took the girls home to find the dog had got there first and a vet appointment had already been booked, and the Welsh pensioner drove off.
A couple of months later I got a letter from a firm of lawyers specialising in PI claims. This
was apparently claiming for "emotional trauma" and a damaged bumper. There was sod all "emotional" wrong with him when I spoke to him, and there was also sod all wrong with the bumper (well, nothing you could see when I looked at it, perhaps there was a minor scratch from the dog's collar studs?).As far as I was concerned, "justice" had already been meted out. The girls, as I said, were hysterical after what happened to their dog and were likely to be very much more careful in future. The dog had an injured leg. This
just hit the mutt, nothing else.Its lucky I never saw him again because, if I had, I would have got put on for at least ABH for him trying to pull this stunt. Suffice to say, the PI specialists were told to "go forth and multpily"
I couldn't agree more, I have a similar one where I reversed very gently into the side of a car that had driven up and stopped behind me, I couldn't see it, it was below my window line. There was no damage to my car, a tiny dent on their's. Then a few weeks later they both claim for whiplash, mother and teenage daughter. Absolutely disgusting, I have made it very clear to the insurance company that it is complete rubbish and they have now asked if I would be willing to appear in court - so hopefully they are refusing the claim,
But equally I was in an accident where I was stationary and was hit from behind by a car doing about 50. Aside from my written off car and a whole lot of inconvenience I suffered neck problems for about five years. I had no issue going for compensation because I had suffered pain and loss due to this woman's complete incompetence.
The issue is one of ensuring that the compensation is in line with the loss. If you suffer a genuine and significant loss due to someone else's actions it is reasonable to pursue and obtain compensation that is in line with the scale of your loss. But not for trivial things and not out of proportion to the loss suffered.
But equally I was in an accident where I was stationary and was hit from behind by a car doing about 50. Aside from my written off car and a whole lot of inconvenience I suffered neck problems for about five years. I had no issue going for compensation because I had suffered pain and loss due to this woman's complete incompetence.
The issue is one of ensuring that the compensation is in line with the loss. If you suffer a genuine and significant loss due to someone else's actions it is reasonable to pursue and obtain compensation that is in line with the scale of your loss. But not for trivial things and not out of proportion to the loss suffered.
GeraldSmith said:
I couldn't agree more, I have a similar one where I reversed very gently into the side of a car that had driven up and stopped behind me, I couldn't see it, it was below my window line. There was no damage to my car, a tiny dent on their's. Then a few weeks later they both claim for whiplash, mother and teenage daughter. Absolutely disgusting, I have made it very clear to the insurance company that it is complete rubbish and they have now asked if I would be willing to appear in court - so hopefully they are refusing the claim,
But equally I was in an accident where I was stationary and was hit from behind by a car doing about 50. Aside from my written off car and a whole lot of inconvenience I suffered neck problems for about five years. I had no issue going for compensation because I had suffered pain and loss due to this woman's complete incompetence.
The issue is one of ensuring that the compensation is in line with the loss. If you suffer a genuine and significant loss due to someone else's actions it is reasonable to pursue and obtain compensation that is in line with the scale of your loss. But not for trivial things and not out of proportion to the loss suffered.
If someone suffers a genuine problem, lets say whiplash, they should not get any cash, but direct private care to deal with the problem. Those that are faking it wont be interested in treatment, therefore claims for non-genuine claims will drop.But equally I was in an accident where I was stationary and was hit from behind by a car doing about 50. Aside from my written off car and a whole lot of inconvenience I suffered neck problems for about five years. I had no issue going for compensation because I had suffered pain and loss due to this woman's complete incompetence.
The issue is one of ensuring that the compensation is in line with the loss. If you suffer a genuine and significant loss due to someone else's actions it is reasonable to pursue and obtain compensation that is in line with the scale of your loss. But not for trivial things and not out of proportion to the loss suffered.
Likewise the story, if someone suffers genuine psychological hardship and needs counselling, give them counselling and pay the counseller direct.
I really don't understand how a "lump sum of cash" helps anyone in reality, apart from making them richer.
Of course, a lot of people are opposed to the idea as they want their slice of the action if they suffer a problem.
Personally I have never claimed a penny despite being in two situations (non fault motorcycle accident, non fault car accident) to do so, and on both occasions I only claimed to get my vehicles up the standard that they were before the accident. I still walk with a limp when it rains, but that is life and s
t happens. Having £7k in cash is not going to change that.Carrot said:
Having £7k in cash is not going to change that.
It might do if your mortgage was in arrears because you hadn't worked for six months.As regards compensation because of the train crash/flying limb problem, I'm surprised nobody raises the issue that it is as dangerous as all buggeration having trains hurtling through stations at full speed with no fence, wall, cage to keep the passengers separated from it.
I can see a counter-claim by the dead guys estate on the station owners, for not having safety barriers etc.
King Herald said:
As regards compensation because of the train crash/flying limb problem, I'm surprised nobody raises the issue that it is as dangerous as all buggeration having trains hurtling through stations at full speed with no fence, wall, cage to keep the passengers separated from it.
Yet we have plenty of these dotted around the countryside, with hardly an incident. I say 'hardly', but to be honest, I can't think of any.
King Herald said:
Carrot said:
Having £7k in cash is not going to change that.
It might do if your mortgage was in arrears because you hadn't worked for six months.£7k cash in hand is not going to change anything.
I have no problems whatsoever in people being compensated for actual loss. There are very, very few reasons for people to have cash to spend on what they want.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff