 |
OK, so I'm a little biased
Author: Dragoman
Date: 11-05-2009 - 17:57
Graham, Charles, please remember the post I was responding to. Gary Hunter's post seemed to imply that RRs should have some sort of immunity against ANY liability vis-a-vis a trespassing pedestrian. That is what I question. Any time you give any person/entitiy a carte blanche to do (or fail to do) what they will without potential liability, than there is the potential for deadly consequences.
Graham, I agree that reasonableness should be an important principle. All I am saying is that what is "reasonable" may not always be so clear. And please review your legal texts -- I believe the doctrine of "contributory negligence" acknowledges that both parties may have contributed to the accident, so that liability should apportioned accordingly -- not denied completely.
Roads fenced in? What a concept! And, as a matter of fact, our most dangerous roads -- freeways and expressways -- usually ARE fenced. City intersections that have higher than average accident rates get stop signs or traffic lights. Even Charles' NJ highway HAS a pedestrian bridge and concrete divider. Why? Because someone thought that it is worth the money to give pedestrians a safe option for crossing a dangerous highway. THEN, if someone is still so stupid as to try to cross, at least it can be said that everything that was REASONABLY possible was done. I'm not sure that is ALWAYS the case with the RRs.
In some areas, I don't think RRs are doing everything that is REASONABLY possible, and giving them -- or anyone else -- immunity doesn't encourage even reasonable precautions, when the bottom line is the most important consideration (as I believe is the case with any major corporation -- RR or otherwise).
And yes, I am somewhat biased. My young son was killed while a "trespasser" on a RR ROW. He was a good student, with an IQ of 125; he was an Eagle Scout; he was well-liked by elders and peers alike. He was not stupid. His brain was more than all "there".
And I know that he did a stupid thing (very different from being stupid!).
But I also know, that many "trespass" where he did, and the RR does -- in my opinion -- less than the minimum "reasonable" to protect its "private property" from "trespassers".
So, let's all be reasonable. But, giving anybody blanket immunity is not reasonable.
Graham, I agree that reasonableness should be an important principle. All I am saying is that what is "reasonable" may not always be so clear. And please review your legal texts -- I believe the doctrine of "contributory negligence" acknowledges that both parties may have contributed to the accident, so that liability should apportioned accordingly -- not denied completely.
Roads fenced in? What a concept! And, as a matter of fact, our most dangerous roads -- freeways and expressways -- usually ARE fenced. City intersections that have higher than average accident rates get stop signs or traffic lights. Even Charles' NJ highway HAS a pedestrian bridge and concrete divider. Why? Because someone thought that it is worth the money to give pedestrians a safe option for crossing a dangerous highway. THEN, if someone is still so stupid as to try to cross, at least it can be said that everything that was REASONABLY possible was done. I'm not sure that is ALWAYS the case with the RRs.
In some areas, I don't think RRs are doing everything that is REASONABLY possible, and giving them -- or anyone else -- immunity doesn't encourage even reasonable precautions, when the bottom line is the most important consideration (as I believe is the case with any major corporation -- RR or otherwise).
And yes, I am somewhat biased. My young son was killed while a "trespasser" on a RR ROW. He was a good student, with an IQ of 125; he was an Eagle Scout; he was well-liked by elders and peers alike. He was not stupid. His brain was more than all "there".
And I know that he did a stupid thing (very different from being stupid!).
But I also know, that many "trespass" where he did, and the RR does -- in my opinion -- less than the minimum "reasonable" to protect its "private property" from "trespassers".
So, let's all be reasonable. But, giving anybody blanket immunity is not reasonable.
