Mother sues CSX over trestle death of her son

[RiversideGator]

Scalding coffee is totally unrelated to kids trespassing on a railroad bridge.  I can think of very few scenarios in which I would find against CSX. 

[Driven1]

yes, if CSX wanted to, they could countersue the mother for her son trespassing, along with suing the 2 kids.  CSX has irrefutable proof that the kids were trespassing.

[gatorback]

trespassing is just criminal right?  The kids could be high and drunk CSX is still at fault.  Trust me.

[adamh0903]

trespassing is just criminal right?  The kids could be high and drunk CSX is still at fault.  Trust me.

And thats what screwed up with our justice system.

[gatorback]

I think what you're talking about is that contributory negligence would disqualify the mom from any recovery, regardless of the proportion of blame on the kid; however, I'm sure they will argue that CSX should have made it impossible for a youth to get access.  CSX could have built a fence, but they made a financial decision to not protect the public.  CSX does that all the time.  Shame CSX.

[blizz01]

This thing is pretty "deep" in the woods if I recall - I mean, there's not even a road or trail leading to it.  What's the cut off for responsibility?

[gatorback]

The majority of personal injury lawsuits in Florida are brought under a theory of negligence. Negligence has to do with how careful a person was when he or she caused an injury, and how careful, according to the law, he or she should have been. So how careful was CSX.  A Sign?  Please.

[adamh0903]

I think what you're talking about is that contributory negligence would disqualify the mom from any recovery, regardless of the proportion of blame on the kid; however, I'm sure they will argue that CSX should have made it impossible for a youth to get access.  CSX could have built a fence, but they made a financial decision to not protect the public.  CSX does that all the time.  Shame CSX.

And if they did have a fence up, they would be sued for not having barbed-wire on top, then if they had barbed-wire on top they would be sued when someone tried to climb over it and cut themselves....As Stephen pointed out earlier we don’t have all the facts, so its a straw-man argument, but bottom line to me, and this is totally my opinion, is that its a terrible, terrible thing that happened, and kids will do dumb stuff sometimes, but the decision ultimately falls back on the teen, who was old enough to know what he was doing and old enough to know what the consequences of playing on a railroad bridge.

[adamh0903]

The majority of personal injury lawsuits in Florida are brought under a theory of negligence. Negligence has to do with how careful a person was when he or she caused an injury, and how careful, according to the law, he or she should have been. So how careful was CSX.  A Sign?  Please.

I know, you would think they would put big arms that go up and down and big flashing lights, and even a bell at railroad crossing....oh wait, they do that people are still dumb enough to go around them when a train is coming, somewhere we have to take responsibility for our own actions, not blame them on someone else

[gatorback]

And who gets hurt most of the time when the jackasses do that?  The engineer.  It's a button of mine...since I used to work at CSX and found out that the car usually gets pushed out of the way, but the train crashes in the the engine.

[Driven1]

I think what you're talking about is that contributory negligence would disqualify the mom from any recovery, regardless of the proportion of blame on the kid; however, I'm sure they will argue that CSX should have made it impossible for a youth to get access.  CSX could have built a fence, but they made a financial decision to not protect the public.  CSX does that all the time.  Shame CSX.

And if they did have a fence up, they would be sued for not having barbed-wire on top, then if they had barbed-wire on top they would be sued when someone tried to climb over it and cut themselves....As Stephen pointed out earlier we don’t have all the facts, so its a straw-man argument, but bottom line to me, and this is totally my opinion, is that its a terrible, terrible thing that happened, and kids will do dumb stuff sometimes, but the decision ultimately falls back on the teen, who was old enough to know what he was doing and old enough to know what the consequences of playing on a railroad bridge.

well put Adam.  i know this to be true, you do and everyone in the world knows this.  even the mother.  hell, if the boy was alive today, he would say the same thing.  it's just that there are devils advocates and trial attorneys in this world.  and while the former can just be a@%(&@#% sometimes, the latter got to get paid.

[gatorback]

I think what you're talking about is that contributory negligence would disqualify the mom from any recovery, regardless of the proportion of blame on the kid; however, I'm sure they will argue that CSX should have made it impossible for a youth to get access.  CSX could have built a fence, but they made a financial decision to not protect the public.  CSX does that all the time.  Shame CSX.

And if they did have a fence up, they would be sued for not having barbed-wire on top, then if they had barbed-wire on top they would be sued when someone tried to climb over it and cut themselves....As Stephen pointed out earlier we don’t have all the facts, so its a straw-man argument, but bottom line to me, and this is totally my opinion, is that its a terrible, terrible thing that happened, and kids will do dumb stuff sometimes, but the decision ultimately falls back on the teen, who was old enough to know what he was doing and old enough to know what the consequences of playing on a railroad bridge.

well put Adam.  i know this to be true, you do and everyone in the world knows this.  even the mother.  hell, if the boy was alive today, he would say the same thing.  it's just that there are devils advocates and trial attorneys in this world.  and while the former can just be a@%(&@#% sometimes, the latter got to get paid.

I'm sorry but tort law can be a little confusing which is best handled by an attorney and they need to get paid just like the rest of the maggots out there.  Let's put it this way.  CSX is in a dangerous business, and like all businesses, they are in it for money.  The sad part is  if they had spent a a god damn nickle to protect the public, well, then we wouldn't be talking about this horrible accident now would we?

It's called Strick Liability in Florida. CSX has to go above & beyond to protect the public. CSX clearly doesn't do that because it eats at the bottom line. It's less expensive to pay the lawsuits then to make the railroad safe.

[adamh0903]

I actually know a family who lost a teenager at a NS railroad crossing where there was no arms, and no lights. The teen didn't stop, was hit by a train and was killed, the family tried to sue NS because there was no arms or lights and lost the suit on Negligence on the drivers part to stop and look for a train.

[gatorback]

was that in fl?  Automobile accidents fall into a different catagoy.  I would have expected some sort of payout.

[Driven1]

kid was trespassing.
he knew he was.  his friends knew they were.  even without the 4 "no trespassing" signs that are there.  they knew that land was not theirs.
they had to travel a fairly great distance from a man-made paved road to engage in such trespassing. 
train was travelling 15% below the maximum allowed speed in that area. 
the engineer blew his horn early.
train horns are not quiet.
2 of the trespassers jumped off safely.  the 3rd did not for some reason.  was he trying to outrun the train out of bravado to impress his friends?  why did he stay on the tracks?  we may never know.  it may come out in court.  who knows. 

but, at this point, there is overwhelming evidence that this star football player (re: Times-Union) was negligent, and sadly, to the point of his own death.  it is a tragedy, but one of the finest-ran corporations in the country should not compensate his mother for his own negligence.