Kid killed by train - liability and damages?

Great Debates
1

Perhaps this fits better in IMHO, and it is just another turn on the old PI liability and damages chestnuts, but I thought I’d toss this up for discussion.

A 10-year-old kid was struck and killed by a train in the Chicago area the other day. There is an article on the Trib website suggesting engineer error was involved (free subscription required) http://www.chicagotribune.com/

Apparently the boy and his mom got off a train at a suburban station. His father was waiting for them on the other side of the tracks. There are 3 sets of tracks - one for local trains in each direction, and the center set for express trains. The train they had just gotten off proceeded to pull out of the station. At just about the same time, an express train was barrelling along on the center track at about 60 MPH.

At every train station I have seen, there are flashing red lights and ringing bells, with signs prohibiting pedestrians from crossing while the warning signals are on. But few if any have drop gates.

You guessed it. As soon as the train pulled out, the kid scampered across the tracks towards his daddy, and proceeds to get smooshed by the incoming express. I have heard no suggestion that the bells and lights were not working. Moreover, the express train sounded its horn when nearing the station.

The alleged “operator error” was on behalf of the train discharging passengers. As I understand it, company policy is that in such instances, the discharging train must be aware of an oncoming express, and must either radio the express to slow down, or remain where it is - physically blocking pedestrians from crossing the tracks.

So I see two possible debates.
-Will the family recover damages?
-And SHOULD they recover?
Perhaps a third issue - how much?

I think the first is a no-brainer. Of course they will. Very sympathetic case. Avoidable at little cost. And the company had a specific policy in effect which was not followed.

The second, however, is where I anticipate more disagreement. I say Hell no. There was one and only one cause for this accident - the kid’s stupidity, with an assist by his parents’ failure to either adequately control him or teach him that - Do not Cross accompanied by flashing lights and blaring horns and clanging bells means - SURPRISE! - DO NOT FUCKING CROSS OR YOU MIGHT GET CRUSHED BY A HUNDRED TON TRAIN YOU STUPID FUCK!

On 3 - I set the over/under around $12-14 million.

2

This story was so horrifying that I almost cried watching it on the news. Yes, I think they’ll get some money. Yes, if the train was supposed to stay put until the oncoming train passed, the railroad will be found guilty of negligence.

The kid was 13 years old and should have been paying more attention, but he obviously was distracted by his dad’s arrival. The mother would not be expected to be holding a 13-year-old’s hand, so she’s off the hook as far as I’m concerned. I’d say if there’s no “stay put” rule, it will be chalked up as a horrible tragedy (and the family will get some money). If the rule is in place, the money will be a lot more and the engineers will follow the rules more closely

3

The article consistently reported him to be 10.

I think it almost skews the issue to focus on the “stay put” rule.
The only reason such a rule was enacted, is because people have proven themselves unwilling to take the most basic steps (i.e. - stand still) to preserve their own lives, unless physically restrained from endangering themselves.

Yes, this is a terrible tragedy. Yes, my kids have screwed up, as did I when I was young. To some extent I have been fortunate that my and my kids’ screw-ups did not result in death. Unfortunately, these folks’ coin came down on the other side the other day.

I repeat - IMO there was but one true cause of this accident - this kid being where he oughtn’t be.

How early do you start teaching your kids to avoid unnecessary risks? In my experience “Stay off the train tracks” and “Look both ways before crossing” are right up there with "Don’t touch that - it’s hot!"

4

I heard two news accounts of the accident; one stating he was 11 and one stating he was 13 (and they called that one the corrected version). To me, it’s irrelevant. I don’t think a mother would be holding a 10-year-old’s hand either.

I don’t think there’s a fool-proof way to keep kids out of harm’s way. You can tell them to stay off frozen lakes in mid-March, but you always hear of a kid falling through because he was screwing around on soft ice. You tell kids lots of things, but they don’t always sink in. I’m reminded of myself at the age of 11, playing tag in a construction site. I was running across a plank between two 3rd floor balconies, and it broke. Luckily, I wasn’t seriously hurt, but I could have been killed. My parents told me about a million times not to do stupid dangerous stuff, but kids do it anyway. It’s part of growing up (if you’re lucky).

5

My perspective as someone who is not familiar with US railway usages but familar with European ones is somewhat different. It looks like a fundamental error in the design of the station to me.

From the drawing in the article and the article itself I get the impression that passengers are supposed to cross to another platform/to the exit by walking over the actual tracks (probably on a surface level to the top of the rails), right? With no physical barrier, just like crossing a road, over two tracks where trains use to run through at 68 mph (110 km/h)?

I recall reading, a few years ago, about the terrible accident near Berlin, before World War I, i.e. not exactly yesterday, where a train plowed into a crowd of passengers crossing the tracks. That led to this kind of setup being abolished. Nowadays the pedestrian crossing over a pair of tracks in a station is almost always a pedestrian underpass or a footbridge, or in the rare cases where it is not, a narrow level crossing with a staff-operated barrier. Different standards apply to streetcar lines, but then streetcars can brake within a few metres.

So the setting of that Chicago accident looks to me like a fundamentally unsafe station design the known risk of which the railroad sought to mitigate with mere operating procedures. They ought to be sued for that, not for an operator error that was bound to happen some day.

6

We’re big on protecting ourselves from ourselves in this country. There’s always someone doing something idiotic. They should have some sort of barracade to keep people from crossing into the path of a train. It certainly couldn’t hurt. People are always getting hit by trains in the Chicago area. Granted, some WANT to get hit by a train, but there are a lot of accidents too.