• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Drunk man run over by train awarded $2.3 million

wtf...the drunk who put himself in front of the train (by accident) is only 35% responsible for him being hit by a subway train???
 
Originally posted by: Ramma2
Well if the driver of the train saw him and didn't stop, thats pretty messed up.
Click to expand...

we don't have the details. But I am pretty sure even in broad daylight if you are on the tracks (like those 2 idiot teenagers that fell asleep) the train will still run you over.
 
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: Ramma2
Well if the driver of the train saw him and didn't stop, thats pretty messed up.
Click to expand...

we don't have the details. But I am pretty sure even in broad daylight if you are on the tracks (like those 2 idiot teenagers that fell asleep) the train will still run you over.
Click to expand...

In the article it says the driver saw the man and had time to stop, but thought he was an inert object.
 
Originally posted by: Ramma2
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: Ramma2
Well if the driver of the train saw him and didn't stop, thats pretty messed up.
Click to expand...

we don't have the details. But I am pretty sure even in broad daylight if you are on the tracks (like those 2 idiot teenagers that fell asleep) the train will still run you over.
Click to expand...

In the article it says the driver saw the man and had time to stop, but thought he was an inert object.
Click to expand...

again, put yourself in front of big moving mass = self ownage. the lawyer alleged the driver had plenty of time to stop. And he was convincing enough that the jury agreed.

stupid jury. The platform areas are lit, which creates shadow in the track area. The lights on subway cars are designed to illuminate the tunnels. Assuming it takes 50 ft to stop the train, can you discern an inert object and a drunk unmoving man in such poor lighting condition from 50ft away?
 
Originally posted by: Ramma2
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: Ramma2
Well if the driver of the train saw him and didn't stop, thats pretty messed up.
Click to expand...

we don't have the details. But I am pretty sure even in broad daylight if you are on the tracks (like those 2 idiot teenagers that fell asleep) the train will still run you over.
Click to expand...

In the article it says the driver saw the man and had time to stop, but thought he was an inert object.
Click to expand...

If the train had time to stop then the drunk had time to get out of the way.
 
Originally posted by: Ramma2In the article it says the driver saw the man and had time to stop, but thought he was an inert object.
Click to expand...

1) The driver thought it was a piece of garbage on the track, but hit the emergency breaks when he noticed movement, but couldn't stop in time.

2) The reason why the guy won the money is because SOP states that whenever a large object is on the tracks, you should stop.

3) Even in "broad daylight" (directed at sdifox), most subway stops are dark. The majority of them are underground in New York. Likely he was at a station platform which is lighted, but even then visibility isn't the best. That's not to defend the driver who stated he saw the guy, but didn't recognize it was a person until it was too late.

4) If every subway driver stopped whenever they noticed debris on the tracks, subways would run consistently late. I'm sure most drivers don't adhere to SOP 100% of the time, but they aren't exactly trying to kill people either. They are trying to find that happy medium where they aren't late to any given stop, but also where they aren't running over an object that could derail the train.

5) The guy was a lightweight.

6) The driver died shortly before the case went to trial so he never had a chance to defend himself. We don't know what circumstances may have been in place so we can only take the man's word on it. Even then, on his word he said that he was drunk and he can't remember how he got onto the tracks.

So in my opinion, the company has to take part of the blame. There's no way to tell if the accident could have been avoided by stopping immediately since both the person affected and the driver are unable to account for what happened that day. Because of this you have to assume that it could have been avoided if proper safety procedures had been followed. Otherwise the procedures have to be revised.

My feelings are that the verdict should have been 60/40. It's 60 percent the guys fault for getting drunk in the first place, not 35%. It's 40% the drivers fault for not breaking sooner.

It would be somewhat entertaining if the family somehow sued Mr. Dibble stating that the stress from running over his drunk ass lead to Mr. Moore's (the driver) death.

Article with more details
 
Originally posted by: Desturel

1) The driver thought it was a piece of garbage on the track, but hit the emergency breaks when he noticed movement, but couldn't stop in time.

2) The reason why the guy won the money is because SOP states that whenever a large object is on the tracks, you should stop.

3) Even in "broad daylight" (directed at sdifox), most subway stops are dark. The majority of them are underground in New York. Likely he was at a station platform which is lighted, but even then visibility isn't the best. That's not to defend the driver who stated he saw the guy, but didn't recognize it was a person until it was too late.

4) If every subway driver stopped whenever they noticed debris on the tracks, subways would run consistently late. I'm sure most drivers don't adhere to SOP 100% of the time, but they aren't exactly trying to kill people either. They are trying to find that happy medium where they aren't late to any given stop, but also where they aren't running over an object that could derail the train.

5) The guy was a lightweight.

6) The driver died shortly before the case went to trial so he never had a chance to defend himself. We don't know what circumstances may have been in place so we can only take the man's word on it. Even then, on his word he said that he was drunk and he can't remember how he got onto the tracks.

So in my opinion, the company has to take part of the blame. There's no way to tell if the accident could have been avoided by stopping immediately since both the person affected and the driver are unable to account for what happened that day. Because of this you have to assume that it could have been avoided if proper safety procedures had been followed. Otherwise the procedures have to be revised.

My feelings are that the verdict should have been 60/40. It's 60 percent the guys fault for getting drunk in the first place, not 35%. It's 40% the drivers fault for not breaking sooner.

It would be somewhat entertaining if the family somehow sued Mr. Dibble stating that the stress from running over his drunk ass lead to Mr. Moore's (the driver) death.

Article with more details
Click to expand...

my broad daylight comment was meant to contrast that if in broad-daylight people get run over and the drivers are not guilty, how are they guilty in a poorly lit environment such as subway.
 
Originally posted by: Ramma2
Well if the driver of the train saw him and didn't stop, thats pretty messed up.
Click to expand...

A train is on a fixed track, a tight schedule and cannot stop on a dime. What's fvcked up now is retards can feign ignorance, take glancing blows and sue the transit for money.
 
A train is on a fixed track, a tight schedule and cannot stop on a dime.
Click to expand...

bolded. no object going at a high rate of speed, whether it be a supertanker, truck, or train, can stop instantly; it takes time and distance for the massive vehicle to come to a halt.
 
OK, not knowing all the facts, but suppose the inert object isn't a drunk, but instead an inert object that derails the train and injures a bunch of passengers. Its determined that the driver had time to stop, but did not because in his mind...most of the stuff he runs over doesn't derail the train. Too bad for the injured passengers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top