Man sues Amtrak/Climbs on top of train/gets zapped

Also aren't there rules about going out on the platforms before trains are called? In Chicago (CUS Amtrak side), one cannot just stroll out on the platform, one's train must be called and the gate opened by staff.

In my experience with South Station, it's hit or miss on whether they block access to the platform until a train is called.

ryanov wrote:

David Benton wrote:Are there any signs at all that high voltage electricity is present ???

I'm pretty sure it's written on the train itself in a few places.

Is it properly lit so that the signs can be read at 3am?
Is it written in English only or are other languages present?
Are there international danger symbols as part of the sign?

Can the warnings be understood by an intoxicated litigant?

ryanov wrote:You actually don't know what you're talking about with regard to the coffee suit. It's not my job to teach you, but go read something about it before you make snap judgments.

Having educated myself to a reasonable degree regarding this suit, I have essentially come to the same 'snap judgment' conclusion.

justalurker66 wrote:As far as how the case is going ... I believe the plaintiff should be doing the research. Asking the defendant to do their homework for them seems like it would violate some rule about self incrimination. The information provided in their response is enough to go on ... few problems at that time of night and no other electrocutions on their system. Let the plaintiff prove their point instead of placing the burden of proof on the defense.

This process is known as discovery and is present in all civil trials. The defendant has to provide information requested from the plaintiff (and vice versa) as long as it is within a certain degree of relevance. This information exchange is 'out of court', so to speak - the plaintiff still has to introduce any evidence that is acquired and prove the elements of the claim.

CHANGEATJAMAICA wrote:After reading Hopkin's council's request to the court it is obvious a lot of $100+/hours have been spent thus far. Even if Mr. Hopkin's wins his suit, he and his family will see very little of the gross award.

These types of cases are frequently taken on a contingency fee basis, where the lawyer will get 1/3 of the award, instead of being paid by the hour

Ok , the point is not wether he was to drunk to read the signs , or it was too dark , if there are no signs then he may have a case . there is a symbol for electrcity that is internationally understood , that is all thats required . no signs at all and i would say there is a case for negligence .

Mod note: we can monday morning quarterback this one all we want, but the outcome is going to be up to a court with attorneys, jury, and judge with as best access to the facts and law books and case law body that can be had. I'm going to lock this one up unless someone has something new such as news or facts.

I should note that certain posters make quite strong statements about "how it works" with regards to what signs are required and what the law is, etc. This isn't much different than making statements to genuine paid railroaders about "how it works" when it comes to rules or train handling. Unless you're a railroad defense lawyer or plaintiff's lawyer, it's likely there is a large body of situation-specific knowledge missing in your "how it works" statement.