Interesting to see that CSX's portion is 35% of the award. Before tort reform took hold in a number of states, CSX could have been on the hook for entire amount if "joint and several" liability was in place. Forward thinking states have amended their civil laws to replace "joint and several" with "proportional liability". Of course the plantiff trial bar fought these changes tooth and nail, but many legislatures (on this rare occasion) saw the light and instituted the change. Before if the defendant was even 1% liable, they could be on the hook for the entire award if they were the last one left standing with deep pockets.
Rocky Mountaineer posted:Here's an interesting excerpt from the article too:
"The jury Monday found $11.2 million to be the total value of Jones' life as well as her pain and suffering. Jurors decided CSX - the only defendant on trial - bore 35 percent of the responsibility for Jones' death, making the railroad's share $3.9 million."
I'm sure glad I didn't dream up that formula, 'cause I could never keep a straight face explaining those numbers to anyone.
It's not just this jury. Bottom line is you have to be able to establish a value for a human life, just as you do to determine if you car is repairable or a total after it's been in an accident.
Among other things, it's based on a person's earning potential, how much their passing has cost their family and the emotional impact on them (which might not factor all the much into the final figure, sometimes). The bottom line is a aspiring model who just signed with an agency at 16 might be worth more than a single, 75-year old man with no family.
It might seems distasteful to you (and I can understand why), but really, do you have a better idea how to establish how much someone gets in a wrongful death case?
It's never going to be a matter of someone doing an Oprah by saying, "You get a million, You get a million, You get a million, everyone gets a millllllllliooooonnnnnnnnn!"
Tommy posted:My understanding is that the engineer was alleged to not use any brake application until the crew was struck, which was the basis for railroad liability.
I've read this, too. If true, that could easily put CSX on the block for at least some percentage of contributory negligence. That appears to be exactly what happened.
Does getting hit by a train going 50 mph or 40 mph make a person any less dead?
Matt Makens posted:Does getting hit by a train going 50 mph or 40 mph make a person any less dead?
Yep, dead is dead unless there's some of really horrific manner with which they got killed. Impact with a train at high speed isn't probably worth as much as, say, being set on fire and left to cook while nobody does anything that they could have. But in the end, the circumstances, like it or not, don't change a value all that much (unless, if you can prove emotional trauma in the fictional case of someone burning up, if their family had to watch, all in some part due to the negligence of someone or a company).
Anyone see the news story about the kids who watched a guy drown, videoed him drowning as they laughed about it, then posted it online? I promise you they'll face some type of jury sooner or later, even though there's no law there that requires someone help another in such a case.
I think when there are huge amounts of money involved, there should be some sort of grand jury type system to see if there is a case to sue the parties.
And once somebody becomes a judge, they break legal ties with the lawyers. They cannot go back.
I think in the UK those who are judges are from a different "pool" from the barristers/lawyers. Hope a UK law expert can comment.
p51 posted:Matt Makens posted:Does getting hit by a train going 50 mph or 40 mph make a person any less dead?
==========≠=========
No, but the lawyer would go with the split second difference in speed may have made, to getting out of the way safely.
The bottom line is, access was deninied, it proved knowledge they were tresspassing. The bozo's took the risk, put lives at stake doing it....and lost.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. It sucks they are dead but bite a stick or something, lol.
==========≠==========
Anyone see the news story about the kids who watched a guy drown, videoed him drowning as they laughed about it, then posted it online? I promise you they'll face some type of jury sooner or later, even though there's no law there that requires someone help another in such a case.
Not. Where? That's like negligent manslaughter isnt it?
I thought most states do have some type of negligence charge for complete inaction in an emergency. I know people folks in Mich have been successfully charged for similar inaction (??? Likely token sentences and probation after the win announcements in the news crediting the politicians and lawyers involved, lol)
Being a journalist won't get you a free pass for nonstop filming either.
The way I understood it, I didn't think you need to swim out, or even board a dock, but you had better stop filming and make an attempt for "official" help if you can do it without personal risk of life or limb (note property isn't included, if you can throw something around you in that floats, you gotta; who's stuff ain't in question then either, grab & toss.)
....then contunue filming assuming you can't do more to help.
Which is a "fine by me" law, it's the least You and I'd do anyhow; Id hope.
Do you think the Wizard could give these all these folks brains, and hearts, and the courage to use them? :dissapoint:
Adriatic posted:p51 posted:Matt Makens posted:Does getting hit by a train going 50 mph or 40 mph make a person any less dead?
==========≠=========
No, but the lawyer would go with the split second difference in speed may have made, to getting out of the way safely.
The bottom line is, access was deninied, it proved knowledge they were tresspassing. The bozo's took the risk, put lives at stake doing it....and lost.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. It sucks they are dead but bite a stick or something, lol.
==========≠==========
Anyone see the news story about the kids who watched a guy drown, videoed him drowning as they laughed about it, then posted it online? I promise you they'll face some type of jury sooner or later, even though there's no law there that requires someone help another in such a case.
Not. Where? That's like negligent manslaughter isnt it?
I thought most states do have some type of negligence charge for complete inaction in an emergency. I know people folks in Mich have been successfully charged for similar inaction (??? Likely token sentences and probation after the win announcements in the news crediting the politicians and lawyers involved, lol)
Being a journalist won't get you a free pass for nonstop filming either.
The way I understood it, I didn't think you need to swim out, or even board a dock, but you had better stop filming and make an attempt for "official" help if you can do it without personal risk of life or limb (note property isn't included, if you can throw something around you in that floats, you gotta; who's stuff ain't in question then either, grab & toss.)
....then contunue filming assuming you can't do more to help.
Which is a "fine by me" law, it's the least You and I'd do anyhow; Id hope.
Do you think the Wizard could give these all these folks brains, and hearts, and the courage to use them? :dissapoint:
I saw that too. No charges were filed against the teens. The sad part they knew what they were doing and we're making fun of the guy who by the way was disabled.
More than sad.
And kids how old? Punishment? Maybe...probably.. But kids? It sounds like a manditory lifetime psych exam sentence is just as good an idea..for everybody. 
Now I keep thinking about that creepy brother from Arsenic&Old Lace that was "sent away" as a boy for torturing other kids and animals.
..it put's the lotion on it's skin!
Mercy?
Maliki?
Damien?
Man, that swim story just kinda "wrecked me" for the night. 
Adriatic posted:Now I keep thinking about that creepy brother from Arsenic&Old Lace that was "sent away" as a boy for torturing other kids and animals.
..it put's the lotion on it's skin!
Mercy?
Maliki?
Damien?
Man, that swim story just kinda "wrecked me" for the night.
Remember, it starts with the parents and values. From what I understand the parents were more concerned that they were targeted for their ethnicity then fore the actual filming of the drowning. Like I said it starts with the parents.
Update on the Florida Case
I do not think the law will stick. A lay person without medical training or equipment cannot call somebody dead.
But the fear that the law will be used might help.
But there might be enough evidence for the family to file a civil lawsuit.
As my wife will often say, it's time for a "news fast". We here in Bucks County, PA are in the throws of recovering from those four young men (ages 19-21) being killed and buried on a local, rural farm by two 20-year-old cousins.
Yes, it's definitely time for a news fast, and this hobby is a great escape from today's harsh realities.
David
p51 posted:Matt Makens posted:Does getting hit by a train going 50 mph or 40 mph make a person any less dead?
Yep, dead is dead unless there's some of really horrific manner with which they got killed. Impact with a train at high speed isn't probably worth as much as, say, being set on fire and left to cook while nobody does anything that they could have. But in the end, the circumstances, like it or not, don't change a value all that much (unless, if you can prove emotional trauma in the fictional case of someone burning up, if their family had to watch, all in some part due to the negligence of someone or a company).
Anyone see the news story about the kids who watched a guy drown, videoed him drowning as they laughed about it, then posted it online? I promise you they'll face some type of jury sooner or later, even though there's no law there that requires someone help another in such a case.
Saw this story earlier this week. Really sad. Agreed that the victim's family is getting chased by lawyers already to file civil suits against these stupid kids.
For the Seinfeld fans in the audience reminds me of the lead up to the series finale when Jerry and the gang were put on trial for not helping the fat guys who was getting mugged. That was funny, this story is not.
Just watch the commercials on TV lately for all of the law firms promising millions for anyone harmed by anything, at anytime. The tort laws in this country need major reforms. We all pay for these lawsuits in one way or another.
Bob
Dominic Mazoch posted:I do not think the law will stick. A lay person without medical training or equipment cannot call somebody dead.
But the fear that the law will be used might help.
But there might be enough evidence for the family to file a civil lawsuit.
What I am hoping is that the DOJ can find something that will really stick and is a felony. The sad thing is FB will pull a video for lesser things but allowed this to be published and shared.
How about "negligent manslaughter" ? (to second an above post)
suzukovich posted:Dominic Mazoch posted:I do not think the law will stick. A lay person without medical training or equipment cannot call somebody dead.
But the fear that the law will be used might help.
But there might be enough evidence for the family to file a civil lawsuit.
What I am hoping is that the DOJ can find something that will really stick and is a felony. The sad thing is FB will pull a video for lesser things but allowed this to be published and shared.
If there is any evidence the people filming were doing this because they guy had some health issues, that might be a "hate crime".
But as bad as all of this is, this whole thing should never have happened. The guy who died was trespassing., which IS a crime. I can hear somebody say, "Well, XX was trespassing, ans should not been in the pond to begin with."
