 |
Just Another (Different) Thought
Author: Dragoman
Date: 11-05-2009 - 13:10
In general, I would agree that much of what you say bears consideration.
But, isn't there a stand to be taken, that this proposed liability exemption should only apply if the railroad has done everything possible to avoid doing harm?
After all, they are operating an ultra-hazardous activity, capable of inflicting great harm to life, limb, and property, in the midst of heavily-populated areas. They are performing a service, but it is as part of a profit-making enterprise. While the ROW is private property, there is, in the law, a concept of attractive nuisance. If ANY property owner has a dangerous condition or activity on their private property, and it is reasonably foreseeable that trespassers will be "attracted" to enter the property, then that property owner must do everything possible to alleviate the condition or prevent the trespass.
Most railroads, in most areas, seem to do an OK job of this. But to say that the railroad should be immune, whether or not they take appropriate precautions, just because "it's private property", may be stretching it a bit.
What about four-quadrant barricades at crossings? Long-range cameras or other people-detection devices, either on the locomotives or trackside? The technology exists to do more than most railroads are doing now. Don't they perhaps have the obligation to do all that is possible to save lives - even those of trespassers? Doesn't even the life of a stupid or drunk trespasser have some value? They are making money on these operations, and they need to spend money to do so safely. Is this any different than spending money on safety equipment, worker-safety programs, etc?
In Chico, CA, for example, UP runs right through the middle of town, next to the the State University. They don't even have decent "No Trespassing" signs. Yes, if a drunk student wanders onto the tracks and gets killed, personal responsibilty must come into play. But shouldn't UP also have some responsibilty, when operating through an area where they know there regularly are drunk students, to do all that is possible on their end? Or, is it OK to kill as many students happen to come by, figuring that they have done enough by registering their private property rights?
No, I believe that sometimes, there may be enough blame to go around.
Just a thought.
But, isn't there a stand to be taken, that this proposed liability exemption should only apply if the railroad has done everything possible to avoid doing harm?
After all, they are operating an ultra-hazardous activity, capable of inflicting great harm to life, limb, and property, in the midst of heavily-populated areas. They are performing a service, but it is as part of a profit-making enterprise. While the ROW is private property, there is, in the law, a concept of attractive nuisance. If ANY property owner has a dangerous condition or activity on their private property, and it is reasonably foreseeable that trespassers will be "attracted" to enter the property, then that property owner must do everything possible to alleviate the condition or prevent the trespass.
Most railroads, in most areas, seem to do an OK job of this. But to say that the railroad should be immune, whether or not they take appropriate precautions, just because "it's private property", may be stretching it a bit.
What about four-quadrant barricades at crossings? Long-range cameras or other people-detection devices, either on the locomotives or trackside? The technology exists to do more than most railroads are doing now. Don't they perhaps have the obligation to do all that is possible to save lives - even those of trespassers? Doesn't even the life of a stupid or drunk trespasser have some value? They are making money on these operations, and they need to spend money to do so safely. Is this any different than spending money on safety equipment, worker-safety programs, etc?
In Chico, CA, for example, UP runs right through the middle of town, next to the the State University. They don't even have decent "No Trespassing" signs. Yes, if a drunk student wanders onto the tracks and gets killed, personal responsibilty must come into play. But shouldn't UP also have some responsibilty, when operating through an area where they know there regularly are drunk students, to do all that is possible on their end? Or, is it OK to kill as many students happen to come by, figuring that they have done enough by registering their private property rights?
No, I believe that sometimes, there may be enough blame to go around.
Just a thought.
