NWFlyer 2 #1 February 18, 2009 How in the hell do you get to a "35% responsible" number, anyway? Obviously I don't know all the facts of this case, but if you've got a .18 BAC you probably ought not to be anywhere you can get in the path of moving trains unsupervised. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/18/drunk.amputee.payout/index.html?iref=mpstoryview QuoteDrunk man run over by train awarded $2.3 million From Jason Kessler CNN 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, 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. From another article: QuoteDibble had a sky-high blood-alcohol level of 0.18 and didn't recall arriving at Union Square, where he was hit by an N train. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #2 February 18, 2009 >How in the hell do you get to a "35% responsible" number, anyway? If the driver of the train was required to stop for any obstruction, and he just plain decided not to stop when he saw him, he's partly at fault. Since I wasn't there I don't know how much (if any) that applies. Take another case. A guy is crossing the street at a pedestrian crossing and he's really drunk. A driver is on his cellphone, smoking a cigarette and eating a hamburger all at the same time. He rams the drunk and kills him, because he figured he was too busy to drive and the drunk would get out of his way in time. Is the drunk 100% responsible for his own death? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #3 February 19, 2009 Comparative negligence and/or contributory negligence are part of the tort law of most (maybe all?) jurisdictions in the U.S. For one example (and probably the most prevalent one), jury apportionment of liability between/among various people involved in vehicle (or vehicle-pedestrian) accidents is far more the rule than it is the exception. So holding one person involved in a multi-party accident, say, 35% comparatively negligent for the accident is actually a very common type of verdict. Whether one does or does not agree with the jury's verdict in this particular case is a separate issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 February 19, 2009 Quote>How in the hell do you get to a "35% responsible" number, anyway? If the driver of the train was required to stop for any obstruction, and he just plain decided not to stop when he saw him, he's partly at fault. Since I wasn't there I don't know how much (if any) that applies. Arguing opinion (not necessarily law), I think it's also necessary to show that the train could have stopped, as opposed to just slowed down. This could be a circumstance where a slower train chews him up and kills him, rather than sever the leg. When SF talks about all the pedestrians killed by motorists, it's a bit annoying that this includes drunks and wreckless jaywalking (dashing out from behind cars). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #5 February 19, 2009 >I think it's also necessary to show that the train could have stopped. Agreed, and that's what the original article implied: "The subway driver had time to stop the train but did not." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,483 #6 February 19, 2009 I had that happen with a cop once when he pulled me over for running a stop sign. I kept telling him that I slowed down and at some point, he got irritated and went back to his vehicle. He came back with a Billy Club and started beating the shit out of me with it and said, "Now, you want me to slow down or stop?" At least that's how I remember it; I mighta been drunk.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erroll 80 #7 February 19, 2009 Quote ...wreckless jaywalking... Sounds pretty safe to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 February 19, 2009 Quote>I think it's also necessary to show that the train could have stopped. Agreed, and that's what the original article implied: "The subway driver had time to stop the train but did not." well, the lawyer asserted this as fact. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #9 February 19, 2009 The easiest example is if you are driving drunk and I run a red light. Do I get a pass because you are drunk, even though you were otherwise driving safely? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #10 February 19, 2009 It's the future. Get used to it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-mJbMm8854 "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peregrinerose 0 #11 February 19, 2009 QuoteThe easiest example is if you are driving drunk and I run a red light. Do I get a pass because you are drunk, even though you were otherwise driving safely? Bad example... people in general are allowed on streets driving/walking... that's what they are for. However no idiot is supposed to be on any subway track for any reason.... at least not on any subway I've ever been on. Doing something stupid, drunk or not drunk, should not be worth millions of dollars. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #12 February 19, 2009 >Doing something stupid, drunk or not drunk, should not be worth millions of dollars. On the other hand, doing something stupid does not give people immunity from intentionally or recklessly injuring you. Even if you jump onto the tracks to retrieve your purse, and break your ankle, a subway driver cannot intentionally run into you with the excuse "hey, she was stupid." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
