 |
Re: Teen's legs severed trying to 'hop' train
Author: OPRRMS
Date: 09-07-2011 - 12:50
I suppose I might as well chime in here.
From what's been reported in the various media, she was one of four people between the ages of 17 and 25 who decided to hop the train. There's no indication from the reports that she was coerced or forced to do it, and at age 17, it's reasonable to assume that she possessed the ability to weigh the possible outcome of her action before she did it - basically, she was old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. She chose to try to hop a moving train and ended up, apparently, falling under it.
The first deposition I ever attended was back in late 1972 or early '73, for an incident similar to this one. It involved a 10 year-old boy who decided to hop a train in Newark, California, that was moving at 10 MPH around the wye from the Dumbarton Main to the Mulford Line. Similar to this case, he apparently ended up falling under the train and lost one leg. Several months later, the entire crew - who had been unaware that the incident had happened until they were contacted by a Special Agent after arrival in Oakland - was sent to SP' General Office in San Francisco to be deposed by the lawyer representing the family of the boy after they had filed a lawsuit against the railroad. The railroad had made an intial five-figure settlement offer, but the family chose to decline it, and went the lawsuit route. At the deposition it quickly became clear that the plaintif's lawyer was pretty clueless about railroads, and that had the case actually gone to court the company's lawyers would been able to present a valid defense. The suit never went to trial, and because of the family's actions, they never received the settlement the railroad originally offerred.
There's a big difference in the expected maturity level of a 10 year-old and a 17 year-old. At 10, trying to hop a moving train is somewhat like a game. But at 17, one should know better.
From what's been reported in the various media, she was one of four people between the ages of 17 and 25 who decided to hop the train. There's no indication from the reports that she was coerced or forced to do it, and at age 17, it's reasonable to assume that she possessed the ability to weigh the possible outcome of her action before she did it - basically, she was old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. She chose to try to hop a moving train and ended up, apparently, falling under it.
The first deposition I ever attended was back in late 1972 or early '73, for an incident similar to this one. It involved a 10 year-old boy who decided to hop a train in Newark, California, that was moving at 10 MPH around the wye from the Dumbarton Main to the Mulford Line. Similar to this case, he apparently ended up falling under the train and lost one leg. Several months later, the entire crew - who had been unaware that the incident had happened until they were contacted by a Special Agent after arrival in Oakland - was sent to SP' General Office in San Francisco to be deposed by the lawyer representing the family of the boy after they had filed a lawsuit against the railroad. The railroad had made an intial five-figure settlement offer, but the family chose to decline it, and went the lawsuit route. At the deposition it quickly became clear that the plaintif's lawyer was pretty clueless about railroads, and that had the case actually gone to court the company's lawyers would been able to present a valid defense. The suit never went to trial, and because of the family's actions, they never received the settlement the railroad originally offerred.
There's a big difference in the expected maturity level of a 10 year-old and a 17 year-old. At 10, trying to hop a moving train is somewhat like a game. But at 17, one should know better.
