What a load of CRAP

[RadiclDreamer]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/...utee.payout/index.html



NEW YORK (CNN) -- A Manhattan jury awarded $2.33 million to a man who lost his leg after drunkenly stumbling onto the path of an oncoming subway train.
Dustin Dibble fell on New York subway tracks, was hit by a train and had his leg severed in 2006.

Dustin Dibble fell on New York subway tracks, was hit by a train and had his leg severed in 2006.

Dustin Dibble, 25, landed in the subway tracks after a late night watching a hockey game at a bar with friends April 23, 2006. A downtown N train ran over him, severing his right leg.

According to Dibble's lawyer, Andrew Smiley, NYC Transit rather than Dibble bore primary responsibility for the accident because the subway driver had time to stop the train but did not.

Smiley added that Dibble's drunkenness did not excuse the driver, who said in a court deposition that he mistook Dibble for an inert object.

"They don't get a free pass as to why the person was on the tracks. They are trained to be able to look out for people on the tracks ... and people are known to be intoxicated by night," the lawyer said.

Dibble's blood-alcohol level at the time of the accident was .18, according to his lawyer, more than twice the legal limit had he been behind the wheel of a car.

The jury ruled Tuesday that Dibble was 35 percent responsible for the accident, so his monetary compensation was also reduced by 35 percent -- from $3,594,943 to $2,336,713.

The deficit-plagued MTA plans to appeal the decision, according to spokesman James Anyansi.


I mean seriously folks double you tee eff

 

[mxyzptlk]

I blame the dumbass driver who admits to seeing him but not stopping if he had time to do so. The drunkard being a drunk doesn't really have shit to do with that IF the driver could've stopped the train in time but chose not to.

Driver should have just said he couldn't stop in time.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
I blame the dumbass driver who admits to seeing him but not stopping if he had time to do so. The drunkard being a drunk doesn't really have shit to do with that IF the driver could've stopped the train in time but chose not to.

Driver should have just said he couldn't stop in time.

Exactly

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Smiley added that Dibble's drunkenness did not excuse the driver, who said in a court deposition that he mistook Dibble for an inert object.

He shouldnt have been on the tracks, drunk or not.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
I blame the dumbass driver who admits to seeing him but not stopping if he had time to do so. The drunkard being a drunk doesn't really have shit to do with that IF the driver could've stopped the train in time but chose not to.

Driver should have just said he couldn't stop in time.

And perjured himself? If official policy is to make a panic stop every time a trash bag or old jacket ends up on the tracks, the trains will NEVER run on time. Saying that he thought it was an inanimate object and posed no threat to the train should have been good enough.



Maybe the jury could have blamed the MTA for 5% of the accident, but not 65%.

 

[Newbian]

I could loose a leg for over 2 million as long as I am drunk enough that I don't feel it.

Sign me up.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Newbian
I could loose a leg for over 2 million as long as I am drunk enough that I don't feel it.

Sign me up.

Below the knee I would, above the knee would be a tough choice.

 

[MedicBob]

Originally posted by: Newbian
I could loose a leg for over 2 million as long as I am drunk enough that I don't feel it.

Sign me up.

I choose which leg and you can never have it reattached or a prosthetic/implant, etc.

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: MedicBob

Originally posted by: Newbian
I could loose a leg for over 2 million as long as I am drunk enough that I don't feel it.

Sign me up.

I choose which leg and you can never have it reattached or a prosthetic/implant, etc.

Why would you never get a prosthetic?

 

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: Newbian

Originally posted by: MedicBob

Originally posted by: Newbian
I could loose a leg for over 2 million as long as I am drunk enough that I don't feel it.

Sign me up.

I choose which leg and you can never have it reattached or a prosthetic/implant, etc.

Why would you never get a prosthetic?

and why does it matter which leg?

 

[marvdmartian]

Reminds me of the story of a so-called "peace activist" named Brian Willson.

In 1987, while engaged in a protest of U.S. weapons to Central America, Willson and other members of a Veterans Peace Action Team blocked railroad tracks at the Concord, California Naval Weapons Station. An approaching train did not stop, and struck the veterans. Willson was hit, ultimately losing both legs below the knee while suffering a severe skull fracture with loss of his right frontal lobe. Subsequently, he discovered that he had been identified for more than a year as an FBI domestic "terrorist" suspect under President Reagan's anti-terrorist task force provisions and that the train crew that day had been ordered to not stop the train to prevent any Hijacking attempts. Willson filed a law suit contending that the Navy and individual supervisors were given ample warning of their plan to block the tracks, and that the train crew had time to stop--which the subsequent official Navy report confirmed. The train crew filed a law suit against Willson, requesting punitive damages for the "humiliation, mental anguish, and physical stress" they suffered as a result of the incident, which was dismissed. Willson later agreed to settle his lawsuit against the Government and train crew for $920,000. Willson now walks with prostheses.

Having been stationed in the SF Bay area at the time this happened, I know the background to this story a little more than what Wikipedia reports. The weapons station is split into two parts by a state highway, with gates in the fence on either side of the highway that are only opened when a munitions train is passing from one side of the station to the other. It was on this highway that the moron in question was conduction his protest. Because of the fact that this weapons station can conceivably store nuclear weapons ("I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on this station"), the train crews are told that they do not stop the train while it's crossing the highway, FOR ANY REASON, regardless of the load they're carrying. The protesters knew this, and yet the Brian Willson idiot decides he's going to stop the train by laying his legs across the tracks!

Personally, I think he got exactly what he deserved, in that he lost his legs. And it's probably a good thing he settled his civil lawsuit out of court, since it's likely that a jury would have told him that too. IMHO, if you injure or kill yourself, due to your own stupidity and with full knowledge of the risks you're taking, you should have ZERO chance to sue someone afterwards, especially with the excuse of, "They should've known not to do that". :|

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer

Smiley added that Dibble's drunkenness did not excuse the driver, who said in a court deposition that he mistook Dibble for an inert object.

He shouldnt have been on the tracks, drunk or not.

That's why his settlement was reduced by 35%

 

[MedicBob]

Originally posted by: Exterous

Originally posted by: Newbian

Originally posted by: MedicBob

Originally posted by: Newbian
I could loose a leg for over 2 million as long as I am drunk enough that I don't feel it.

Sign me up.

I choose which leg and you can never have it reattached or a prosthetic/implant, etc.

Why would you never get a prosthetic?

and why does it matter which leg?

You are aware males of our species sometimes refer to their "third leg" in a reference to their penis, right? I thought the implant comment was a good enough clue... guess not.

Anywho,

Driver ran him over and he has to live with it, but those under the influence are responsible for their own actions.

 

[Red Squirrel]

That's pretty sad. People who are drunk in public are basically zombies, and should have zero rights if something happens to them. Learn to drink responsibly.

 

[StageLeft]

The driver was retarded but so was this guy. I'd say he deserves no money but perhaps that driver needs disciplinary action for being bad at his job. Certain things happen in life that suck, though, the subway hardly can be to blame for this douche-sac falling in front of a train, what a loser.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
I blame the dumbass driver who admits to seeing him but not stopping if he had time to do so. The drunkard being a drunk doesn't really have shit to do with that IF the driver could've stopped the train in time but chose not to.

Driver should have just said he couldn't stop in time.

And perjured himself? If official policy is to make a panic stop every time a trash bag or old jacket ends up on the tracks, the trains will NEVER run on time. Saying that he thought it was an inanimate object and posed no threat to the train should have been good enough.



Maybe the jury could have blamed the MTA for 5% of the accident, but not 65%.

I'd guess that official policy is to stop the train for any object of a certain size being on the tracks. That's just good common sense. Yes, it may make the trains late, but is it better the train be on time at the risk of running someone over? The fact that the driver flat out said "I had time to stop and chose not to" is the nail in the coffin. If a car hits a drunk pedestrian, and the car had time to stop, the driver can't say "Oh, he was drunk, I'm off the hook."

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: jagec

If official policy is to make a panic stop every time a trash bag or old jacket ends up on the tracks, the trains will NEVER run on time. Saying that he thought it was an inanimate object and posed no threat to the train should have been good enough.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy


I'd guess that official policy is to stop the train for any object of a certain size being on the tracks. That's just good common sense. Yes, it may make the trains late, but is it better the train be on time at the risk of running someone over?

This was in Manhattan. If the train had to stop every time the driver saw a large object like a trash bag floating around, the train would never get up to speed. This would inconvenience millions of people. All so they can avoid hitting the dumbest of the dumb who get drunk off their ass and lay on train tracks? Seriously now, come on.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I doubt he could have stopped the train. Trains don't really stop as easily as some people think. When you have 50 tons of steel going a certain speed on wheels, you need LOT of energy to stop it. Sure he could have applied all emergency brakes on all cars but is some drunk tard really worth ripping the whole track appart + hurting everyone inside? No.