Yesh...
Jon
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I can't even think about the lawsuit,that story is way too gruesome to even worry about it.
In times past, no body would have gone to court. But the actions of the person DID cause damage to the woman, and it WAS PREVENTABLE.
Used to be, prople followed "rule of law". But now, the only way to get people to do the right think is to attack the wallet.
Also, the lady could sue over mental distress over being hit by body parts. It happened at a train station, not at a IED site in Asia.
Used to be, prople followed "rule of law". But now, the only way to get people to do the right think is to attack the wallet.
Also, the lady could sue over mental distress over being hit by body parts. It happened at a train station, not at a IED site in Asia.
That is one of the most unbelievably SELFISH actions I have ever heard. Is this what we have become as a Society - all about me ME ME!
Sickening, and I'm not talking about the dead teenager.
Sickening, and I'm not talking about the dead teenager.
Are You for real Dominnic????
The part that I find most disturbing is that most of the comments on the article agree with the lawsuit.
I'm with you, Dominic. The lady suffered broken bones because the dead individual took unreasonable risk and put himself in a position where his body could become a projectile and cause injury to others, which it did. There was no contributory negligence on her part, and she is certainly entitled to have her medical bills paid by the estate of the deceased risk-taker. As to any damages for mental trauma and other things, there are legal remedies in the law for that, too, and we would hope that the plaintiff would be ethical, instead of trying for all she could get, but that's another matter.
It is a very unusual situation, but, clearly, one person took unreasonable risk, and another - who was not negligent in any way - was injured as a result.
It is a very unusual situation, but, clearly, one person took unreasonable risk, and another - who was not negligent in any way - was injured as a result.
Having your medical bills paid and suing a dead dismembered teen's remains is a bit different.
Guys,
Whether you agree or not (and I definitely disagree with suing the estate) whether a case is heard or not depends on whether the case has legal merits in the opinion of the judge hearing the case.
Whether she gets all she can from this depends on whether the attorneys she has hired are any good.
Personally, I do not think this is the last we'll here of this case.
Good luck with this one, it should be quite a while until she collects! Another waste of tax payer dollars!
Mike Maurice
Whether you agree or not (and I definitely disagree with suing the estate) whether a case is heard or not depends on whether the case has legal merits in the opinion of the judge hearing the case.
Whether she gets all she can from this depends on whether the attorneys she has hired are any good.
Personally, I do not think this is the last we'll here of this case.
Good luck with this one, it should be quite a while until she collects! Another waste of tax payer dollars!
Mike Maurice
I am on the fence with this one, If It were me that this happened to,
I would want my medical bills paid and any incurred loss of wages reimbursed.
It would be the same as if some drunk person slammed into your car and caused you bodily damage.
It was not her fault and who knows what trauma she could suffer down the road from the thoughts of a torso coming at her?
War veterans have post traumatic stress from the views of battle.
Maybe she will too.
It was a nasty way to get hurt and she will never be the same again due to the negligence of this teen.
I would want my medical bills paid and any incurred loss of wages reimbursed.
It would be the same as if some drunk person slammed into your car and caused you bodily damage.
It was not her fault and who knows what trauma she could suffer down the road from the thoughts of a torso coming at her?
War veterans have post traumatic stress from the views of battle.
Maybe she will too.
It was a nasty way to get hurt and she will never be the same again due to the negligence of this teen.
If it were me, as soon as my wrist healed I would write a letter to the boy's family offering my deepest condolences.
But then, I'm retired and I have Medicare!
But then, I'm retired and I have Medicare!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...ying-body-parts.html
I think one should carefully read ALL in the above before condemning that teen.
My opinion is that her lawsuit as to whom is being sued is repugnant. She and the boy's parents should have jointly sued those responsible for allowing 70 mph trains to pass the station with no protection.
Ed Mullan
I think one should carefully read ALL in the above before condemning that teen.
My opinion is that her lawsuit as to whom is being sued is repugnant. She and the boy's parents should have jointly sued those responsible for allowing 70 mph trains to pass the station with no protection.
Ed Mullan
Ed, you really disappointed me with this response. A foolish person steps in front of a moving train, and it is the RAILROAD'S fault? That stretches the limits of logic, in my opinion. Should we not hold INDIVIDUALS responsible for their own actions?quote:Originally posted by Ed Mullan:She and the boy's parents should have jointly sued those responsible for allowing 70 mph trains to pass the station with no protection.
Ed Mullan
The Long Island Rail Road expresses through stations all the time. The wind from the blow-back is enough to know you off the platform. They do give waiting passengers two toots.
Suing the estate of the teen however seems a bit much.
Jon
Suing the estate of the teen however seems a bit much.
Jon
Ed,
I must agree with Rich. That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen in a long time! Remember that MANY of the commuter lines in the Chicago area are THREE TRACK MAIN LINES for either the UP (former C&NW main line) or the BNSF (former CB&Q main line), and have pretty heavy freight traffic, from high speed intermodel trains to 130+ coal/hopper trains, along with all the 75MPH Amtrak/METRA commute trains.
No railroad train traffic would be able to move throughout the western suburbs of Chicago if EVERY train had to operate at "reduced speeds" thru EVERY SINGLE STATION! Besides, some stupid people would probably STILL get killed because the "trains were taking too much time to pass.".
I must agree with Rich. That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen in a long time! Remember that MANY of the commuter lines in the Chicago area are THREE TRACK MAIN LINES for either the UP (former C&NW main line) or the BNSF (former CB&Q main line), and have pretty heavy freight traffic, from high speed intermodel trains to 130+ coal/hopper trains, along with all the 75MPH Amtrak/METRA commute trains.
No railroad train traffic would be able to move throughout the western suburbs of Chicago if EVERY train had to operate at "reduced speeds" thru EVERY SINGLE STATION! Besides, some stupid people would probably STILL get killed because the "trains were taking too much time to pass.".
This is a tough one.
I guess we'll see how far into the ridiculous this lawsuit gets BUT... This lady was doing nothing wrong and was injured. I'm sure there are expenses to be paid. Did she miss work for any extended period? That's also money coming out of her pocket.
She is entitled to seek compensation for her injuries. Seems she picked the right entity to sue. Someone (the deceased person) caused her injury through their negligence. Now if she seeks millions of dollars, then she is out of line.
Or think of it this way. I've got a few "toys". If I go on a dream vacation and run up 10 grand on my credit card this week and get hit by a bus next week, that debt doesn't die with me. It is applied against my assets.
Now how much of an estate a teenager has is another story. If the guy had a Cadillac Escelade or a $10,000 dollar entertainment system or a decent bank account, then there is certainly compensation to be had.
Dave
I guess we'll see how far into the ridiculous this lawsuit gets BUT... This lady was doing nothing wrong and was injured. I'm sure there are expenses to be paid. Did she miss work for any extended period? That's also money coming out of her pocket.
She is entitled to seek compensation for her injuries. Seems she picked the right entity to sue. Someone (the deceased person) caused her injury through their negligence. Now if she seeks millions of dollars, then she is out of line.
Or think of it this way. I've got a few "toys". If I go on a dream vacation and run up 10 grand on my credit card this week and get hit by a bus next week, that debt doesn't die with me. It is applied against my assets.
Now how much of an estate a teenager has is another story. If the guy had a Cadillac Escelade or a $10,000 dollar entertainment system or a decent bank account, then there is certainly compensation to be had.
Dave
I did not say anything about reduced speeds. The kind of protection I have in mind
is something like an over or under to get to the commuter track on the other side of the station. Or, if there is a dedicated crossing to get to the opposite direction trains, some sort of fence between the row's and auto closing gates on them for approaching trains.
"Seeing what he thought was his local train approaching and expecting it to slow down, Joho went to cross a same-level pedestrian walkway across the tracks to get to the right side of the track.
But in fact Joho's train was delayed by the bad weather, his mother's lawyer Keith Davidson said.
The train which hit him was an Amtrak high speed express speeding at 70mph towards the city centre.
The express Amtrak train had overtaken his Metra train which was running late that morning, but no announcement was made on the platform, the suit said.
But a Cook County judge ruled that the railway companies had no compulsion to warn people about such an 'open and obvious danger' as a traveling train. The decision was upheld on appeal
Keith Davidson, one of Park's attorneys, said that the crossing where of high speed trains cross a slow commuter train track is inherently hazardous.
The whistle that warns people to keep clear is no longer in use and the view of the track is partly blocked by foliage, he said."
The fact that there was at one time a warning device says something about the danger there. Even just a voice warning when a thru train is approaching at 70 per should be at these types of commuter stations.
Now the case we talked about last year, in case any one should think I'm sue happy, were the dumbell crawed over the fence at that train yard and climbed up on an engine or car and touched the overhead wires, and won a lawsuit, was completely wrong.How a judge or jury award anyone in those circumstances is beyond me. And the fence he went over was clearly marked no trespassing!
Ed Mullan
is something like an over or under to get to the commuter track on the other side of the station. Or, if there is a dedicated crossing to get to the opposite direction trains, some sort of fence between the row's and auto closing gates on them for approaching trains.
"Seeing what he thought was his local train approaching and expecting it to slow down, Joho went to cross a same-level pedestrian walkway across the tracks to get to the right side of the track.
But in fact Joho's train was delayed by the bad weather, his mother's lawyer Keith Davidson said.
The train which hit him was an Amtrak high speed express speeding at 70mph towards the city centre.
The express Amtrak train had overtaken his Metra train which was running late that morning, but no announcement was made on the platform, the suit said.
But a Cook County judge ruled that the railway companies had no compulsion to warn people about such an 'open and obvious danger' as a traveling train. The decision was upheld on appeal
Keith Davidson, one of Park's attorneys, said that the crossing where of high speed trains cross a slow commuter train track is inherently hazardous.
The whistle that warns people to keep clear is no longer in use and the view of the track is partly blocked by foliage, he said."
The fact that there was at one time a warning device says something about the danger there. Even just a voice warning when a thru train is approaching at 70 per should be at these types of commuter stations.
Now the case we talked about last year, in case any one should think I'm sue happy, were the dumbell crawed over the fence at that train yard and climbed up on an engine or car and touched the overhead wires, and won a lawsuit, was completely wrong.How a judge or jury award anyone in those circumstances is beyond me. And the fence he went over was clearly marked no trespassing!
Ed Mullan
quote:The whistle that warns people to keep clear is no longer in use and the view of the track is partly blocked by foliage, he said."
Actually THAT statement about "whistle blowing is no longer used" is DEFINATELY NOT TRUE! Whenever there is a stopped, or stopping, train in any station, and an "express train" (Amtrak or otherwise) overtakes the stopped, or stopping, train, they blow the horns (whistle) like crazy, inspite of the "anti-whistle ordinances" throught the Chicago METRA comuter districts.
I didn't take it to mean a train whistle, I should have. But it is unbelievable that you can have people crossing tracks to get to another train without warning them that the wrong train is approaching, and at 70 per.
That judge said "it's such an obvious danger that anyone should know to keep clear of the tracks"
I hate taking the "nanny state" approach to this, but not all people realize the danger as we do.
If it's such an obvious danger, and there is a no whistle ordinance there, then that is cause for a warning device at the station.
And since the railroad has already ducked the lawsuit, they would be smart to do something about this problem.
How foolish was this young man? He probably had crossed before to get to his train. No warning the one he thought was his train was not, it was one approaching at a high speed. Just a simple voice warning from a loudspeaker at the station could have saved this kid.
Ed Mullan
That judge said "it's such an obvious danger that anyone should know to keep clear of the tracks"
I hate taking the "nanny state" approach to this, but not all people realize the danger as we do.
If it's such an obvious danger, and there is a no whistle ordinance there, then that is cause for a warning device at the station.
And since the railroad has already ducked the lawsuit, they would be smart to do something about this problem.
How foolish was this young man? He probably had crossed before to get to his train. No warning the one he thought was his train was not, it was one approaching at a high speed. Just a simple voice warning from a loudspeaker at the station could have saved this kid.
Ed Mullan
quote:Originally posted by Ed Mullan:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...ying-body-parts.html
I think one should carefully read ALL in the above before condemning that teen.
My opinion is that her lawsuit as to whom is being sued is repugnant. She and the boy's parents should have jointly sued those responsible for allowing 70 mph trains to pass the station with no protection.
Ed Mullan
WHAT!!! Are you for real! What's next? Do the railroad's need to fence in every exposed foot of their right of way to protect ourselves from the occasional idiot who's tresspassing? Yeah, I feel for everyone who was involved in this horrible but odd accident, but to blame the railroad for (excessive speed ?)thru this area is ludicrous.
Trains of all kinds cruise our rail system's every day at speeds exceeding 70. It's up to us, (read: people with a working brain and no death wish) to be wary and careful in these areas. These properties belong's to the railroad companies and we have NO business being on them without permission.
Russian trains don't seem to blow for road crossings or stations judging by this you tube video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...G222dc1cRVAAAAAAAABw
Just a difference in societies I guess.
Greg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...G222dc1cRVAAAAAAAABw
Just a difference in societies I guess.
Greg
Ed,
I simply can NOT believe your take on this whole situation! The "no whistle ordinance" in the Chicago commute districts go back more than 60 or 70 years. Entire generations have grown up along the Burlington "race track", for example, without whistles (horns), going back to the steam era. In those days, actually through the 1960s, the speed was 90MPH for the CB&Q Zephyrs! I have personally witnessed the Cal. Z go through LaGrange Road station at better than 80+MPH in 1962, and the right-of-way was NOT even fenced in those days.
Today the right-of-way of the BNSF (former CB&Q) and the UP (former C&NW) three track main lines are entirely fenced, even between the main tracks! Still idiots cross tracks at stations, "in a hurry to catch their train". What is wrong with that picture? One statistic that is very rarely discussed in the Chicago area, has been the number of commuter fatalities caused by "walking into the side of a moving train" in the winter months. They are all bundled up, maybe listening to their ear phones, or whatever the younger generation calls those damned things, and still WALK INTO THE SIDE OF A MOVING TRAIN!
Just what are the transit districts supposed to do anymore?
I simply can NOT believe your take on this whole situation! The "no whistle ordinance" in the Chicago commute districts go back more than 60 or 70 years. Entire generations have grown up along the Burlington "race track", for example, without whistles (horns), going back to the steam era. In those days, actually through the 1960s, the speed was 90MPH for the CB&Q Zephyrs! I have personally witnessed the Cal. Z go through LaGrange Road station at better than 80+MPH in 1962, and the right-of-way was NOT even fenced in those days.
Today the right-of-way of the BNSF (former CB&Q) and the UP (former C&NW) three track main lines are entirely fenced, even between the main tracks! Still idiots cross tracks at stations, "in a hurry to catch their train". What is wrong with that picture? One statistic that is very rarely discussed in the Chicago area, has been the number of commuter fatalities caused by "walking into the side of a moving train" in the winter months. They are all bundled up, maybe listening to their ear phones, or whatever the younger generation calls those damned things, and still WALK INTO THE SIDE OF A MOVING TRAIN!
Just what are the transit districts supposed to do anymore?
The problem with trying to make something idiot proof is underestimating the ingenuity of a complete idiot.
Many of the local MARC commuter stations on the Brunswick line (AKA CSX Metropolitan Sub) have the well known wooded pedestrian crossings in the station between the platforms on the opposite sides of the track. Many now have your standard crossing flashers and audible warnings but NONE OF THOSE will save anyone NOR SHOULD THEY BE RELIED ON REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION to protect the clueless ********* that can't pick up their head and eyes off their cell phone.
What is wrong here, I did not say they should reduce the speeds of the trains..quite simply put, make people, maybe unaware or dumb people, aware of the danger. What in Gods Green Earth is the wrong with that?
I don't think that kid was an idiot, he did make a nasty mistake. Stepped in front of a train he thought was going to stop and it hit him at high speed. And he certainly paid for it, didn't he. This kid was not using a cell phone, according to the news report it was raining hard and he had an umbrella. He thought the approaching train was his. No doubt took one look from under the 'brella, saw the train coming, looked back down on the ground and took off.
And rethinking this thing, why put up expensive fences, ect as i previously said, why not a warning a non stopping train is approaching at high speed?
I guess a different view of all this because I've made my share of mistakes. Even a few in which I was darn lucky.
Back when I was a kid, we went down to the passenger station at Piedmont a lot, just to watch trains. Never saw one that was doing more than forty or so, as Piedmont was at the foot of 17 mile grade.
Now move up to two years ago, me and and my side kick went down to Dan's Run, east of Cumberland to railfan and take a few photos of the CPL's down there.
Here's me, closer that wife, fifteen feet away from the row, and here comes
the Capital Limited at track speed, which I think is 69 per. I was at my minimum distance from the track, fifteen feet, and that thing scared the H out of me. So it's hard for me to imagine people regularly closer than that at these commuter stations.
Ed Mullan
I don't think that kid was an idiot, he did make a nasty mistake. Stepped in front of a train he thought was going to stop and it hit him at high speed. And he certainly paid for it, didn't he. This kid was not using a cell phone, according to the news report it was raining hard and he had an umbrella. He thought the approaching train was his. No doubt took one look from under the 'brella, saw the train coming, looked back down on the ground and took off.
And rethinking this thing, why put up expensive fences, ect as i previously said, why not a warning a non stopping train is approaching at high speed?
I guess a different view of all this because I've made my share of mistakes. Even a few in which I was darn lucky.
Back when I was a kid, we went down to the passenger station at Piedmont a lot, just to watch trains. Never saw one that was doing more than forty or so, as Piedmont was at the foot of 17 mile grade.
Now move up to two years ago, me and and my side kick went down to Dan's Run, east of Cumberland to railfan and take a few photos of the CPL's down there.
Here's me, closer that wife, fifteen feet away from the row, and here comes
the Capital Limited at track speed, which I think is 69 per. I was at my minimum distance from the track, fifteen feet, and that thing scared the H out of me. So it's hard for me to imagine people regularly closer than that at these commuter stations.
Ed Mullan
Ed,
I must disagree with your logic of suing the railroad for this persons misfortune. Even if there was no safety warning of a high speed approaching train, I think the person is responsible for his own actions.
If this person could see his train coming, that would give me enough reason to believe this person should of been able to make a logical decision of whether it was safe or not to cross the tracks. My guess is that he saw the train, decided to run across the tracks without ever taking a judgment of how fast this train was moving.
I must disagree with your logic of suing the railroad for this persons misfortune. Even if there was no safety warning of a high speed approaching train, I think the person is responsible for his own actions.
quote:Seeing what he thought was his local train approaching and expecting it to slow down, Joho went to cross a same-level pedestrian walkway across the tracks to get to the right side of the track.
If this person could see his train coming, that would give me enough reason to believe this person should of been able to make a logical decision of whether it was safe or not to cross the tracks. My guess is that he saw the train, decided to run across the tracks without ever taking a judgment of how fast this train was moving.
I have seen some butchery inside wreckage on the interstate. What usually amazes me is how sometimes people survive and stay alert calling for help. (Which is usually on the way.)
We do what we can. As far as the imagery in the mind... it's part of life and I wont sue for it.
But that is just me.
We do what we can. As far as the imagery in the mind... it's part of life and I wont sue for it.
But that is just me.
It is then, quite clear that the woman, who was badly injured, should sue. How else is she going to have her medical bills paid?
Since the boy caused her injuries, as the majority agree here, the lawsuit is going to be her only way to recover her expenses, as nasty as that seems. So then the lawsuit is necessary, and maybe not so selfish.
Having said that, however, I think the real problem with lawsuits is that
the juries, since they are playing with "other people's money" go wild with the large amounts they award.
Ed Mullan
Since the boy caused her injuries, as the majority agree here, the lawsuit is going to be her only way to recover her expenses, as nasty as that seems. So then the lawsuit is necessary, and maybe not so selfish.
Having said that, however, I think the real problem with lawsuits is that
the juries, since they are playing with "other people's money" go wild with the large amounts they award.
Ed Mullan
quote:Do the railroad's need to fence in every exposed foot of their right of way to protect ourselves from the occasional idiot who's tresspassing?
I understand they do in the UK, that's why they don't need headlights.
OK, NOW I've heard everything! Yikes! DK
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Ed Mullan:
It is then, quite clear that the woman, who was badly injured, should sue. How else is she going to have her medical bills paid?
If it had happened to me then it would be my health insurance that is paying for it. That's what it's there for. Obamacare should take care of her anyways.
So then her insurance company will sue his parents.
Ed Mullan
Ed Mullan
OK here is a novel idea, "Stay The **** Off The Railroad Tracks." Might work.
Many thanks,
Billy C
Many thanks,
Billy C
A very sooothing thread to read through. I never saw a greater pile of issues with rail safety at one time. Trains are NEVER going to become popular again in America because of popular ignorance of trains, which could help save our GAS for several more decades.
No one seems to have issues about the carnage on our roads every year which make millions of dollars for the insurance industry,lawyers,paralegals, stenographers, and so on.
Some Americans believe UNEARNED MONEY is the way to go. God help us all!
No one seems to have issues about the carnage on our roads every year which make millions of dollars for the insurance industry,lawyers,paralegals, stenographers, and so on.
Some Americans believe UNEARNED MONEY is the way to go. God help us all!
I'm a little hesitant to believe a story like that from a blogger without corraboration - like a link to a "real" news source like a newspaper or TV station report on it.
Guys,
This goes on and on.....Could it happen again....yes should it....no, then we (as a society) will take all reasonable safety precautions including but not limited to being aware that passing trains can maim and kill even at slow speeds. Posting signage, erecting fences or whatever it takes so that this carnage does not take place again is the place to start.
Common people be a little upset that this needless accident happened!
I know it's nobody's fault except the poor jerk who it happened to, but be reasonable it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't put his umbrella down between him and the elements. Here's a rule that should apply: when crossing tracks have nothing blocking your vision!
Can you imagine the shock value of the guy that hit him in the train, he must have seen the whole thing, that's a whole other ball of wax isn't it? Who's going to pay for therapy for that guy???
Nuff said!
Mike Maurice
This goes on and on.....Could it happen again....yes should it....no, then we (as a society) will take all reasonable safety precautions including but not limited to being aware that passing trains can maim and kill even at slow speeds. Posting signage, erecting fences or whatever it takes so that this carnage does not take place again is the place to start.
Common people be a little upset that this needless accident happened!
I know it's nobody's fault except the poor jerk who it happened to, but be reasonable it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't put his umbrella down between him and the elements. Here's a rule that should apply: when crossing tracks have nothing blocking your vision!
Can you imagine the shock value of the guy that hit him in the train, he must have seen the whole thing, that's a whole other ball of wax isn't it? Who's going to pay for therapy for that guy???
Nuff said!
Mike Maurice
Our legal system...I just came across this one - YGTBSM:
"Florida Man Guilty of DUI Manslaughter Sues Victim"
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc...53893--abc-news.html
"Florida Man Guilty of DUI Manslaughter Sues Victim"
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc...53893--abc-news.html
I saw that one too but didn't want to post it because I didn't want to argue with someone who agreed that he should be allowed to sue.
This whole series of events is very unfortunate.
It is a sad commentary on our judicial system that allows a case like this to proceed. Keep in mind it is not the flaws in the system that perpetuate something like this, but the people we have running the system, a number of whom are not just flawed, but totally devoid of common sense and logic.
I am sympathetic towards the family of the deceased teen; however, when around trains one MUST be aware of their surroundings AT ALL TIMES, even on a train platform. The teen was not paying attention and paid the ultimate price.
Also, I am sympathetic towards the woman who was injured by flying body parts; however, she, too has a responsibility to herself to be aware of her surroundings on a train platform. Inattention on her part does not absolve her of being aware of what is going on around her.
The railroad has no responsibility in this issue whatsoever.
The stupidity of this lawsuit ranks up there with suing because hot coffee was spilled in a lap at a drive-thru.
It is a sad commentary on our judicial system that allows a case like this to proceed. Keep in mind it is not the flaws in the system that perpetuate something like this, but the people we have running the system, a number of whom are not just flawed, but totally devoid of common sense and logic.
I am sympathetic towards the family of the deceased teen; however, when around trains one MUST be aware of their surroundings AT ALL TIMES, even on a train platform. The teen was not paying attention and paid the ultimate price.
Also, I am sympathetic towards the woman who was injured by flying body parts; however, she, too has a responsibility to herself to be aware of her surroundings on a train platform. Inattention on her part does not absolve her of being aware of what is going on around her.
The railroad has no responsibility in this issue whatsoever.
The stupidity of this lawsuit ranks up there with suing because hot coffee was spilled in a lap at a drive-thru.
Fence the track. Person tries to climb fence. Gets hurt. Sues RR.
