Jury Awards $24.2 Million to Boys Injured on Amtrak Tracks Posted on : Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:48:00 GMT | Author : RodaNast, P.C. News Category : PressRelease
PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- A Philadelphia federal jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania yesterday awarded total damages of $24.2 million against Amtrak and Norfolk Southern for electrical burn injuries suffered on August 10, 2002 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania by two 17-year-old boys, Jeffrey Klein and Brett Birdwell. The boys lived in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, but were visiting Klein's mother in Lancaster. They went skateboarding in the neighborhood, and at about 10:00 p.m. came to the parking lot of a former convenience store, at an intersection in a mixed residential/commercial area in Lancaster City.
About fifty feet behind the parking lot was a side track of Amtrak, where Norfolk Southern had parked a 29-car train the day before. Amtrak leased the track to Norfolk Southern to park trains there when Norfolk Southern's train yard was full. The evidence showed that the boys saw the train parked behind the store, that one of the cars had ladders on each corner and a catwalk around the top, and that the boys decided to climb up and see what the view was of the city. There were no drugs, alcohol or vandalism involved. Unknown to the boys was the presence of a fully energized, 12,000 volt catenary electrical wire just six feet above the boxcars. There were no signs of any kind warning of high voltage or electricity, nor even a readily visible "No Trespassing" sign on Amtrak's right of way. Within minutes of the boys' reaching the top of one of the boxcars, an arc of electricity struck Jeffrey Klein, inflicting second and third degree burns over 75% of his body. Brett Birdwell, who was walking behind Klein on the catwalk, went to Klein's rescue, pulling Klein's burning clothes off him, and received second degree burns over 12% of his body. Klein spent 75 days in Temple University's Burn Care Unit, underwent twelve surgeries, and has permanent, severe scars over his burn and donor sites, as well as permanent disability from injuries to his left hand and back. Birdwell spent twelve days at Crozier Chester Medical Center's Burn Unit, and a year recovering. He is now in the armed forces in Afghanistan. Klein and Birdwell sued Amtrak and Norfolk Southern for unnecessarily creating a highly dangerous risk to the public, especially teenage boys. After an eleven-day trial, the jury found Amtrak 70% responsible for the boys' injuries and Norfolk Southern 30% responsible. At trial, the boys' attorney, Joseph F. Roda, of RodaNast, P.C., Lancaster, argued that the catenary wire should not have been left energized while the train was parked under it. The train was pulled onto the tracks with a diesel, and no other train could use the tracks, or need the power from the catenary, while the 29-car train was parked there. Plaintiffs introduced evidence that both Amtrak and Norfolk Southern know that the dangers of catenary lines are not generally known or obvious to the public, and that both companies, and railroad companies generally, have long required all employees who work in electrified territory to take annual training and tests on the dangers of catenary wires. The training warns them that the catenary lines have dangerous high voltage, that the voltage in the catenary lines is strong enough to "arc" into someone without the person's touching the wire, and that a person should never get onto the top of a boxcar parked under such a line unless the line has been de-energized and grounded. Evidence was also introduced that the Federal Railroad Administration, in a report to Congress in 1971, warned that the general public was not aware of the dangers of catenary wires, that juveniles in particular were at risk of danger from them, and that the railroad industry should adopt the use of signs (such as with lightning bolts and stickmen) alerting the public to catenary wire dangers. Plaintiffs also showed the jury internal Amtrak memoranda, as well as testimony from Amtrak officers in federal court in the mid-1980s, that showed Amtrak's awareness of the risk to the public from the combination of parked trains under live catenary wires in urban areas. The jury awarded Klein $340,000 for past medical bills; $197,000 for estimated future medical bills; $1.6 million for future lost earning capacity; $9 million for pain and suffering, scarring, humiliation, and loss of life's pleasures; and punitive damages of $4.375 million against Amtrak and $1.375 million against Norfolk Southern. The jury awarded Birdwell $288,000 for past medical bills; $300,000 for pain and suffering; and the same amounts as Klein in punitive damages against Amtrak ($4.375 million) and Norfolk Southern ($1.375 million). The trial was conducted before the Honorable Lawrence F. Stengel of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The jury consisted of eight persons chosen from the nine southeastern counties in Pennsylvania. Amtrak and Norfolk Southern were represented by Paul F. Gallagher, of Gallagher and Rowan in Philadelphia. RodaNast, P.C
Posts: 134 | From: New York, New York USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does this mean the airlines have to post signs on parked planes warning of danger or on the runways? Or what about parked busses. After all you coud easily slide off the top of one.
Posts: 1577 | From: virginia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there were indeed no signs warning of overhead catenary, and the area wasn't fenced off, then the railroads do have to bear some responsibility. Sure, the kids shouldn't have been there in the first place - and certainly not climbing on top of boxcars - but a few cheap signs and proper fencing could have saved Amtrak('s insurers) a huge wad of money.
What are the rules on fencing electrified railroads in the US?
Geoff M.
Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
None that I know of. FRA requirements for fencing of railroads relates to speed on track.There are fence laws in quite a few states, but most of these relate to livestock and require some form of shared responsibility with the adjacent landowner. Legally so far as I know an overhead catenary wire in the US is of the same status of any other bare wire strung between poles carrying electricity, of which there are a lot. Anybody stupid enough to grab one lacks sufficient functional brain cells to be loose without a keeper. There were signs that said "NO TRESSPASSING" These were not "kids" they were 17. Which means old enough to drive in almsot all states.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There are fence laws in quite a few states, but most of these relate to livestock and require some form of shared responsibility with the adjacent landowner. "
Ah, so that would explain the apparent hit'n'miss nature of fencing. I thought there might have been at least something which said that electrified lines had to be fenced off, though the speed one at least makes sense.
According to the story, they didn't actually grab the wire but just got sufficiently close for the juice to arc. Catenery is not the easiest thing to see in the dark.
Geoff M.
Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember, American cantenary is usually considerably higher above the rail than the English version. Do not know the UK is (is it about 4.4 m = 14.5 feet?), but in Taiwan it is at 4.9 to 5.1 meters, both for the normal railway and on the high speed line. In gereral, about as low as it gets on the northeast corridor is aroud 17 feet (5.2 m), probably some lower in approach to the Hudson River Tubes. The normal for the northeast corridor is somwehre in the range of 18.5 feet to 22 feet (5.64 m to 6.7 m). Others, like the Black Mesa and Lake Powell have it at 22 feet or 23 feet (6.7 to 7.0 m) normally. Generally, for light rails we try to keep the wire at 19 feet (5.8 m), and that for 1500 volts DC usually.
George
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
5.1m I believe is the highest we have (don't know what the average is). But it's not catenary height that is at issue - it's the difference between the car height and the wire height that is important if you're stupid enough to clamber over the top of car. While it was their ultimate responsibility *not* to trespass, there appears to have been precious little to either deter or prevent them doing so.
Mind you, even with fences and dire warnings of death, we still get kids (albeit much younger generally) every few years who manage to find or make a hole, climb on top of a stabled train, and inevitably fry. I don't think anybody has ever got compensation out of the railways for this because the railways did everything reasonable to prevent it happening.
Geoff M.
Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I don't know the details of this, ladders to the tops of box cars have been gone for many years. So, if it was a box car, they had to have dones some form of wall climbing act to get to the top. Hopper cars, covered hopper cars and tank cars do still usually have ladders to the top because of the need to access the top during loading, unloading, cleaning, etc.
Yes, it is the difference between car top and wire elevation that is the significant number. Usually that number is also bigger for average equipment.
Part of the problem is the difference in legal system. The legal fee system may also be a factor. Am I correct in that there is no contingency fee system in the UK?
George
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having read about a "contingency fee", we do have it but it is perhaps known by a different name. The "popular" (as in advertised on TV a lot) method is "no win, no fee", mostly used for personal injury claims. Instead the claimants pay a hefty "insurance" premium up front. Often this premium is far more than what they actually get out of the case (assuming they win) - so they actually lose money out of it.
The reason nobody has managed to get compensation for such frying incidents is because the kids involved circumvented all reasonable deterrents so the railway cannot be held liable for their actions.
Geoff M.
Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
geoff, The American "Contingency Fee" process is that the lawyer (is this Barrister in your system?) collects no fee for his services unless he wins, in chic case he usually gets 1/3 of the total. If it goes to appeal, the percentage also goes up. He does, hovever pass through all court fees, filing fees, and such like. My understanding is that he is not allowed to pay those regardless of how good he thinks the case is. So far as I know there is not such thing as an "insurance fee" up front. What are you supposed to be insuring, anyway?
George
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember when I first read about this, it was a long time ago- I cant belive the won the lawsuit
Posts: 989 | From: DIAMOND BAR CA. U.S. | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "insurance" fee is in case you lose - it covers the solicitor's and court fees. It's a poor deal, aimed at the low income families who feel they have nothing to lose (except the insurance premium) and everything to gain (except the insurance premium often costing more than what they win). Anybody fortunate enough to have both brains and money would go through the normal route of hiring a solicitor and paying by the hour or fixed rate or whatever scheme that particular solictor operates for that type of case.
Solicitors are for the lower courts; barristers can operate in both higher and lower courts.
Geoff M.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The teens tresspassed onto railroad property. Amtrak is not at fault because the kids knowling went onto a train without permission. Would I be at fault if two kids came onto my property and got hurt falling down? The answer would be no because they tresspassed and I would have evidence.
There must have been a sign saying"No Tresspassing". Unauthorized people should never ever be on or around equipment or on an active track. You don't know what lies ahead in this case electric wires.
If I were the judge I would have said Amtrak is not at fualt since the boys tresspaseed and took a risk and got hurt. It's an unfortunate accident but true.
quote:Originally posted by travelplus: The teens tresspassed onto railroad property. Amtrak is not at fault because the kids knowling went onto a train without permission. Would I be at fault if two kids came onto my property and got hurt falling down? The answer would be no because they tresspassed and I would have evidence. Any imput?
I dunno, travelplus. One of the main reasons ppl keep homeowner's insurance is liability for what you mention. The classic example is what was called "attractive nuisance," like a swimming pool in your backyard. Neighbor kid gets in somehow, climbs your fence, jumps in, drowns. Man, the attorneys will be all over it, even if you had a sign saying "Please Don't Come In." As for the Amtrak verdict, I feel it is way too excessive, and I hope it will be overturned or severely reduced by an appellate judge. But normally, the RRs really get dinged in these kinds of cases, due to the sympathy factor of jurors.
Posts: 588 | From: East San Diego County, CA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cases like this are one of the reasons that I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to serve on Jury Duty. I believe there should be provisions in our laws for a thing called "common sense." As travelplus said, these kids were trespassing on railroad property -- period. Sign or no sign -- use their COMMON SENSE (if they have any....) Unfortunately, in today's legal system, it doesn't matter what is right and what is wrong -whoever has the most money will win such cases -- IN EVERY CASE!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Maybe cases like this are one reason you should try to serve on Jury Duty. Even if you can't completely stop it, maybe you could at least reduce teh damage. Of course, the attorneys for the plaintiffs would try to eliminate anybody with any sort of railroad connection from the jury.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
