NationStates Jolt Archive

Once again, our glorious American Civil Courts prove to to be the upholders of justice for sheer stupidity.

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.

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.

If it was a bad matter of someone accidentally tripping or getting their foot stuck, I would likely be more sympathetic, but this is an idiot who got drunk and lost his leg. It's his own fault. I don't live in NY so I have no idea what the tracks are like if they are always littered with trash or so clean you can eat off of them (though highly doubt that with NYC). I researched it's the policy of the transit system to stop for trash but I could bet that there's always trash on the tracks in which case you would be stopping every five minutes.

This man is being awarded for his idiocy, and if only our judges would grow brain stems and stop letting this insane lawsuits into the system.

You get drunk and loose a limb, it's your own fault. Time for us to stop blaming the system for our own stupid mistakes and time for our judges to stop encouraging people with awarding when no award is due.

He should be given more to drink, and encouraged out onto the tracks in his new wheelchair.

So, train operator, who is theoretically trained on how to spot someone on the tracks, and stop, failed to do so, even though he had the time to do so, and gets sued.

What's the problem here? It's the train operator's job to watch out for people on the tracks, and react in time if possible. he failed to do so. The fact that the individual was drunk may explain how he got ON the tracks in the first place, but that is not at all relevant to the fact that train operator failed to reasonably do his job.

They both contributed to his injury. The man for getting drunk and falling into the tracks, and the conductor who was able to stop in time, but failed.

It's to policy of the NYC underground to stop for things on the track, I'm assuming on the off chance they are a person on the tracks or the trash could damage the train and put the passengers in danger.

This driver failed to do so and cost a man his leg, I fail to see your point.

Also, Dustin Dibble? Lol.

Five steps to becoming a millionaire:

1. Drink yourself to stumbling.
2. Put a nonessential part of the body on the track (best a foot, keep the rest of the leg).
3. Sue for several million dollars.
4. ???
5. Profit!

Five steps to becoming a millionaire
1. Drink yourself to stumbling.
2. Put a nonessential part of the body on the track (best a foot, keep the rest of the leg).
3. Sue for several million dollars.
4. ???
5. Profit!

Unless, you know, the shock of having a part of your body severed by a subway doesn't kill you.

It's to policy of the NYC underground to stop for things on the track, I'm assuming on the off chance they are a person on the tracks or the trash could damage the train and put the passengers in danger.

This driver failed to do so and cost a man his leg, I fail to see your point.


^ This. The driver should have stopped, and he didn't. I can't fathom why it should matter, legally, whether the victim fell because he was drunk or fell because he tripped over his shoelace; either way, the driver should have stopped, and he didn't.

Also, pointing out that his blood alcohol content was "twice the legal limit, if he had been driving" is bizarrely silly. He wasn't driving, and there is no law against being drunk off your ass while NOT driving, so his BAC is entirely and completely legal.

Meh. It is always amusing when the "personal responsibility" crowd conveniently decides some plaintiff is responsible for damages caused by the defendant -- but the defendant bears no responsibility. :eek::tongue:

Some relevant thoughts (emphasis added);

CNN reports that a Manhattan jury awarded $2.33 million to Dustin Dibble, who lost his leg after drunkenly stumbling onto the path of an oncoming subway train. The story gave the following background, stating that Dibble fell and "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." The conductor apparently mistook Dibble for "an inert object", whatever that might have been.

Although the result in the case might be offensive to some at first sight, the case does bring up some interesting policy questions for debate. For instance, if one were to say that Dibble was entirely at fault, would it have been preferable to have him behind the wheel of a car? It could be (and perhaps was) argued that he was being responsible by taking public transportation instead of driving, in the first place. Alternatively, should he have taken a cab? If so, would he have all the blame if he drunkenly got hit by a cab while hailing it? One response would be that perhaps Dibble should have chosen to stop drinking before he hit a .18 BAC, but in the end these are all issues the jury (composed of our peers) likely faced when making its decision. Sometimes awards that seem incomprehensible at first glance end up, at least arguably, having a more rational basis.

It should be noted that the jury in this case was not entirely unsympathetic to NYC Transit, finding that Dibble was 35 percent responsible for his own injuries and damages, which reduced the award "from $3,594,943 to $2,336,713." In this case, the jury did not absolve Dibble of fault, but it did apparently buy into arguments that the train conductor was trained to stop the train, and had time to do so, when he saw him on the tracks.
link (http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2009/02/dustin-dibble-drunk-man-who-lost-leg-in-train-accident-awarded-23-million-runaway-train-or-runaway-j.html)

In Germany, if you're hit by a train, and you're a pedestrian, it's always your fault, and the train has no obligation to stop.

There, the reward for stupidity is death, as it is in nature.

^ This. The driver should have stopped, and he didn't. I can't fathom why it should matter, legally, whether the victim fell because he was drunk or fell because he tripped over his shoelace; either way, the driver should have stopped, and he didn't.

It does matter, to an extent, under a contributorily negligent system. In other words, even if someone's negligence caused you injury, if your OWN negligence caused you to be in the way in the first place, you can be partially responsible.

In this case, getting very very drunk is one of those things. And, in fact, he WAS found 35% responsible, and was only, as such, given 65% of the overall award.

It does matter, to an extent, under a contributorily negligent system. In other words, even if someone's negligence caused you injury, if your OWN negligence caused you to be in the way in the first place, you can be partially responsible.

In this case, getting very very drunk is one of those things. And, in fact, he WAS found 35% responsible, and was only, as such, given 65% of the overall award.

Yeah, I see that now. Interesting. That seems like it'd be a really hard thing for a jury to determine, though - I mean, how negligent are you if you're just a bit tipsy? If you saw your shoelace was untied and didn't bother to tie it? If you were wearing those stupid shoes with wheels in them and rolled off the platform? And so on, and so on...

Exactly 35%? he's responsible for seven twentieths of his lost leg...?

He should be given more to drink, and encouraged out onto the tracks in his new wheelchair.

I laughed so hard at that. Thanks for making my day:)

What's the problem here? It's the train operator's job to watch out for people on the tracks, and react in time if possible.
When I was test-driving a 997 and tried the brakes, these carbon-ceramics almost threw me into the dash despite the belts, and I didn't even notice as the car stopped. If there was someone lying on the road, I would probably manage to stop in time. Probably.

Seeing as the train costs at least 100 times more, I guess its brakes should be even better.

Yeah, I see that now. Interesting. That seems like it'd be a really hard thing for a jury to determine, though - I mean, how negligent are you if you're just a bit tipsy? If you saw your shoelace was untied and didn't bother to tie it? If you were wearing those stupid shoes with wheels in them and rolled off the platform? And so on, and so on...

yes, well, that is what juries do...that's their call.

Unless, you know, the shock of having a part of your body severed by a subway doesn't kill you.
No pain, no gain! Where have you seen a risk-free ultra-high-return investment?


Or just get junked on painkillers rather than alcohol instead.

yes, well, that is what juries do...that's their call.

Indeed. I'm just saying I wouldn't want to have to decide exactly how negligent the hypothetical victim in each of those cases was. :p

Indeed. I'm just saying I wouldn't want to have to decide exactly how negligent the hypothetical victim in each of those cases was. :p

hey, better than the old scheme. Under old NY law, the rule was that if you were in any way and to any extent responsible for your own injuries, you couldn't recover anything

Exactly 35%? he's responsible for seven twentieths of his lost leg...?

Frankly, it's his leg. You'd think he'd be able to keep track of it better, train or no train.

Also, anyone who willingly goes out on the NYC subway tracks and isn't a trained transit worker is an idiot. Those things are electrified, there are loads of rats and rodenticide, there's litter and dirt everywhere, and a train can't realistically stop quickly enough to avoid turning you into charbroiled salsa (extra chunky). Yet more proof that alcoholic beverages should be outlawed completely, with the penalty for drunkenness being death. It's the only way.

yes, well, that is what juries do...that's their call.

But I think it's their call, and the seemingly arbitrarily high fine (which isn't unusual at all however), which is the issue here.

But I think it's their call, and the seemingly arbitrarily high fine (which isn't unusual at all however), which is the issue here.

whose call WOULD it be? We use a jury system here.

whose call WOULD it be? We use a jury system here.

I meant in the sense that it's not the fact that they made the call which is the issue, but the call they made that was the issue, if you catch my drift.

I meant in the sense that it's not the fact that they made the call which is the issue, but the call they made that was the issue, if you catch my drift.

You disagree with the dollar figure, then, but not the ultimate judgement?

In Germany, if you're hit by a train, and you're a pedestrian, it's always your fault, and the train has no obligation to stop.

There, the reward for stupidity is death, as it is in nature.
In Portugal, if you're hit by a train, and you're a pedestrian, it's always the monkey's fault, and the train has no obligation to travel back in time to stop an outbreak of ebola.

There, the reward for stupidity is cake and tea, as it is in certain laboratories examining rage viruses.


My claim has the same amount of support as yours :wink:
yes, well, that is what juries do...that's their call.

That could be left up to a judge to do.

Juries are silly things -_-

You disagree with the dollar figure, then, but not the ultimate judgement?

I didn't say I specifically disagree with anything in that post. However, disagreement could be made about the dollar figure, and the judgement, in regards to the percentage of responsibility assigned. That doesn't mean there is disagreement over the fact that the jury had the authority to make that decision, just that the decisions was stupid.

In Germany, if you're hit by a train, and you're a pedestrian, it's always your fault, and the train has no obligation to stop.
There, the reward for stupidity is death, as it is in nature. Now, why can't we have it like that?

In Portugal, if you're hit by a train, and you're a pedestrian, it's always the monkey's fault, and the train has no obligation to travel back in time to stop an outbreak of ebola.

There, the reward for stupidity is cake and tea, as it is in certain laboratories examining rage viruses.


My claim has the same amount of support as yours :wink:


And is more fun. :)

My claim has the same amount of support as yours :wink:

In Germany, most trains are doing 160 kph or higher - they are electric, and as a result, very quiet on approach.

The rail lines are secured by fencing. Complete with signs that tell you to stay out of the rail right of way.

If you cut the fence and get on the tracks, by the time the train sees you, there is no way it will be able to stop until it's already run you over.

So, if you're on the tracks, and the train hits you, it's always your fault.

Numerous American soldiers were killed each year this way - the most that would happen is the parents of the dead soldier got a technical report from the Germans that he had violated every possible restriction, climbed or damaged a fence intentionally, and stepped out in front of a speeding train on purpose.

In Germany, most trains are doing 160 kph or higher - they are electric, and as a result, very quiet on approach.

The rail lines are secured by fencing. Complete with signs that tell you to stay out of the rail right of way.

If you cut the fence and get on the tracks, by the time the train sees you, there is no way it will be able to stop until it's already run you over.

So, if you're on the tracks, and the train hits you, it's always your fault.

Numerous American soldiers were killed each year this way - the most that would happen is the parents of the dead soldier got a technical report from the Germans that he had violated every possible restriction, climbed or damaged a fence intentionally, and stepped out in front of a speeding train on purpose.

Welcome to Irrelevantland. Population: You.

Welcome to Irrelevantland. Population: You.

Welcome to "the world isn't uniformly going to give anything to a drunk who gets run over".

Welcome to "the world isn't uniformly going to give anything to a drunk who gets run over".

Which is irrelevent, because we're not talking about German law, since - the last I checked - NYC trains don't have any German stations on their routes.

Welcome to Irrelevantland. Population: You.

I wonder the usefulness of a passenger train where the passengers can't get onto a train. Since he says the tracks are enclosed by fences.

I wonder the usefulness of a passenger train where the passengers can't get onto a train. Since he says the tracks are enclosed by fences.

Everywhere except in the station.

Everywhere except in the station.

zomg moving the goal posts nao? lawl

Which is irrelevent, because we're not talking about German law, since - the last I checked - NYC trains don't have any German stations on their routes.

The new Second Avenue line they've been talking about has a planned stop in Würzburg. Between the East 4th Street and Guangzhou stations.

zomg moving the goal posts nao? lawl

If there's no fence at the station, then some drunk could just wander onto the tracks!

If there's no fence at the station, then some drunk could just wander onto the tracks!

please, who ever heard of a drunk German?

so Hotwife... the tracks are completly fenced off? like say at a road crossing? is that fenced off also?

please, who ever heard of a drunk German?

yes, Germans are all sober, upstanding, humorless, somewhat overweight, and have outrageous accents. totally unlike Americans, who are insensitive, obese, rude, incompetent, drunken, and bigoted.

so Hotwife... the tracks are completly fenced off? like say at a road crossing? is that fenced off also?

In Germany cars fly.

so Hotwife... the tracks are completly fenced off? like say at a road crossing? is that fenced off also?

Yeah, the German government are a bunch of trolls. They do it for the lulz apparently.

Fun fact: 140,490 miles of railroad track in the US. 47518 miles of track in Germany. Anyone have a clue how much it'd cost to run 47.5k miles of 8 foot fencing, though actually it'd be 95k miles, gotta cover both sides. Bet that's pricey.

Just don't walk on the damn tracks. That's all there is to it. Cheap and effective.

Yeah, the German government are a bunch of trolls. They do it for the lulz apparently.

ah, so we now know it wasn't the Berlin wall that seperated Germany... but a set of train tracks! :D

ah, so we now know it wasn't the Berlin wall that seperated Germany... but a set of train tracks! :D

Damn, I feel bad for having missed that joke.

In Germany, most trains are doing 160 kph or higher - they are electric, and as a result, very quiet on approach.

The rail lines are secured by fencing. Complete with signs that tell you to stay out of the rail right of way.

If you cut the fence and get on the tracks, by the time the train sees you, there is no way it will be able to stop until it's already run you over.

So, if you're on the tracks, and the train hits you, it's always your fault.

Numerous American soldiers were killed each year this way - the most that would happen is the parents of the dead soldier got a technical report from the Germans that he had violated every possible restriction, climbed or damaged a fence intentionally, and stepped out in front of a speeding train on purpose.

I don't think you quite comprehend the difference between a subway train and a regular train. It's okay though, they're just completely different things.

I don't think you quite comprehend the difference between a subway train and a regular train. It's okay though, they're just completely different things.

Our Metro subway trains are doing well over 100 kph, are also electric, and the tracks are also fenced off and there's warning signs - the only place you can access a train is at the platform.

There are few places where the train could see you in time to stop with our subway. If you were underground on the tracks - forget it. You're dead or chopped up.

What's a little human pate between friends?

What's a little human pate between friends?

I think we're paying too much for leg meat.

The new Second Avenue line they've been talking about has a planned stop in Würzburg. Between the East 4th Street and Guangzhou stations.

No that is not valid because those trains fly.....

What's a little human pate between friends?

between friends is one thing. but between the track and the train wheel makes it rather hard to share.

Our Metro subway trains are doing well over 100 kph, are also electric, and the tracks are also fenced off and there's warning signs - the only place you can access a train is at the platform.

Yeah, 100 kph is nothing compared to 160 kph when stopping distance comes into play. The mass is also significantly different, so I'm sticking with the whole "you have no idea what you're talking about" angle.

I don't think you quite comprehend the difference between a subway train and a regular train. It's okay though, they're just completely different things.
Yet nonetheless, they take at least half a minute to come to a stop. That is over a quarter mile distance. From that distance, a man lying on the tracks (sub-1' high) looks like only 1 or 2 "pixels" on the retina in its highest-resolution spot.

Once you're so close that you notice the body, slam on the brakes or not, the train will cut it. The visibility conditions aren't a plain white field with a black body on it.

Yeah, 100 kph is nothing compared to 160 kph when stopping distance comes into play. The mass is also significantly different, so I'm sticking with the whole "you have no idea what you're talking about" angle.

Then I'm sure you would be willing to bet your life (or your legs) on it.

When people get on the tracks at our Metro, they get run over.

Yet nonetheless, they take at least half a minute to come to a stop. That is over a quarter mile distance. From that distance, a man lying on the tracks (sub-1' high) looks like only 1 or 2 "pixels" on the retina in its highest-resolution spot.

Once you're so close that you notice the body, slam on the brakes or not, the train will cut it. The visibility conditions aren't a plain white field with a black body on it.

Apparently, information presented in court made it clear that this driver was trained to stop in this situation. He chose not to. That puts him at fault.

If he had not been trained to do so, or if visibility conditions had made him unable to see the man, then he wouldn't share fault.

Now, why can't we have it like that?

Because even in Germany I bet the trains are obligated to stop if they're able, and that the line is drawn at what's reasonably expected of them.

Should the train be moving at 50 kph at some point, and a guy is observed walking the tracks, the train engineer can't just speed up and hit him with impunity.

Because even in Germany I bet the trains are obligated to stop if they're able, and that the line is drawn at what's reasonably expected of them.

Should the train be moving at 50 kph at some point, and a guy is observed walking the tracks, the train engineer can't just speed up and hit him with impunity.

But, running down pedestrians is the best part! :(

Apparently, information presented in court made it clear that this driver was trained to stop in this situation. He chose not to. That puts him at fault.

If he had not been trained to do so, or if visibility conditions had made him unable to see the man, then he wouldn't share fault.

Exactly.

If this case had had an extenuation (like a blind curve, or some other reason that the driver couldn't have stopped) there'd be no fault.

But it's specifically stated that the driver could have stopped, and chose not to - indeed, the driver gave a reason WHY he chose not to stop. The rules required him to stop for an obstruction, and he chose not to - and that obstruction turned out to be a person.

Kimchi and Vault are throwing complete irrelevances under the wheels of this train.

Apparently, information presented in court made it clear that this driver was trained to stop in this situation. He chose not to. That puts him at fault.

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.

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

the driver, who said that he mistook Dibble for an inert object.

who said that he mistook Dibble for an inert object.

mistook Dibble for an inert object.

for an inert object.

inert object

*snip*

And? If the driver had known for certain it was a person and still failed to stop, I'd say he would carry damn near (if not at) 100% of the blame.

Suppose I were driving my car down the road, hit someone, and then said, "Oh, I thought they were just a piece of tire." I would still be at fault, no?

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.

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

the driver, who said that he mistook Dibble for an inert object.

who said that he mistook Dibble for an inert object.

mistook Dibble for an inert object.

for an inert object.

inert object

Ohhh...pretty.

According to the OP it's NYC metro policy to stop for all objects on the track, inert or not. The driver failed to follow company policy.

[CENTER][SIZE="1"]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.


On the other hand:

"Dibble's lawyer, Andrew Smiley, said that the NYC Transit was the bigger culprit because a driver is supposed to stop the train if he sees a big mass in front of the train."

http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20090218/888/twl-drunken-man-awarded-2-3m-for-losing.html

-snip-

since all negligence actions involve someone fucking up, I fear when you get sued for making a mistake "I made a mistake" doesn't cut it as a defense.

On the other hand:
"Dibble's lawyer, Andrew Smiley, said that the NYC Transit was the bigger culprit because a driver is supposed to stop the train if he sees a big mass in front of the train."
Well, perhaps Dibble wasn't as obese as Americans are stereotyped to be.



Suppose I were driving my car down the road, hit someone, and then said, "Oh, I thought they were just a piece of tire." I would still be at fault, no?
If you had brakes that allowed you to stop quickly. If you didn't have such brakes, you'd be guilty of some sort of negligent homicide due to the failure to have your brakes checked.

Or, if you had a good lawyer, Dibble would sue your state's authorities for failing to spot the inadequacy of your brakes.

Well, perhaps Dibble wasn't as obese as Americans are stereotyped to be.


Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Nowhere does it say the mass has to have a certain poundage to count. You could have tried to argue that there was a grey area, and that maybe a cat would 'not count', and maybe a cow would 'count', or something like that.

But no, you make some inane comment about obesity.

Stop wasting my time.

Clearly the man-sized mass on the tracks WAS enough for the mitigation to be acceptable, so your quibbling over size is irrelevent. The train should have stopped for a mass on the tracks. It didn't. That's the end of the story.

It's all over now but the whining.

In Germany, most trains are doing 160 kph or higher - they are electric, and as a result, very quiet on approach.

The rail lines are secured by fencing. Complete with signs that tell you to stay out of the rail right of way.

If you cut the fence and get on the tracks, by the time the train sees you, there is no way it will be able to stop until it's already run you over.

So, if you're on the tracks, and the train hits you, it's always your fault.

Numerous American soldiers were killed each year this way - the most that would happen is the parents of the dead soldier got a technical report from the Germans that he had violated every possible restriction, climbed or damaged a fence intentionally, and stepped out in front of a speeding train on purpose.

So, for the many reasons you point out, the situation you describe in Germany is not at all like what happened in New York in this case.

Thanks for sharing.

When I was test-driving a 997 and tried the brakes, these carbon-ceramics almost threw me into the dash despite the belts, and I didn't even notice as the car stopped. If there was someone lying on the road, I would probably manage to stop in time. Probably.

Seeing as the train costs at least 100 times more, I guess its brakes should be even better.

Wouldn't make a difference. Inertia doesn't work that way. A train would have a much longer track to run before it comes to a stop than a car would due to the mass difference. Stopping a 1.5 ton vehicle is a lot easier than stopping a +50 ton train.

Well, he'd have lost had the train severed both legs....


because he wouldn't have a leg to stand on!

Well, he'd have lost had the train severed both legs....


because he wouldn't have a leg to stand on!I didn't know that New Yorkers were Cheesers.

For only one leg.... hmmm



But really, stupid things and people like this drunk moron will be the end of us some day.

I didn't know that New Yorkers were Cheesers.
Cheesers?

Well, he'd have lost had the train severed both legs....


because he wouldn't have a leg to stand on!

Well, that pun-ished us all. :p

Cheesers?Obscure reference to Green Bay fans. And saying your joke was cheesy. ;)

In Germany, if you're hit by a train, and you're a pedestrian, it's always your fault, and the train has no obligation to stop.

There, the reward for stupidity is death, as it is in nature.

Exactly. Its the same for cars to, so watch out for us crazy German drivers!

Wouldn't make a difference. Inertia doesn't work that way. A train would have a much longer track to run before it comes to a stop than a car would due to the mass difference. Stopping a 1.5 ton vehicle is a lot easier than stopping a +50 ton train.
Exactly my point - I was being sarcastic.

And it's closer to 50 tons per train car, not even the whole thing. With low-friction wheels, without ABS.
Maximum power braking in a trains grinds down the wheels and the track, with damage potential up to the need to replace all the wheels on the train and a mile of track. In some cases there's even a risk of derailment, which has to be weighed against the collision damage.

And here's how much damage a train takes from a foreign object on the tracks that is made from tougher stuff than man and is 30 times larger:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekpD06P7kiI


Or let's put it this way. A typical car is 12,000 times heavier than a particularly large bug. A train weighs 1,000 to 80,000 tons, so even a small one is 20,000 times heavier than a man, and a particularly large one a whopping 1,000,000 times. That would be more like car to ant ratio.
So tell me, how often do you brake when you see a bug in front of you? If you see it in time, of course.