Jump to content

Drunk guy falls on tracks, gets run over by N train.. gets $2.3 million

duelingdragons

By duelingdragons,
in Off Topic Lounge

Recommended Posts

duelingdragons

duelingdragons

Posted
Posted

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/18/drunk.amputee.payout/index.html

 

Absolutely UNBELIEVABLE. Sorry if this is old news.

 

 

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A Manhattan jury awarded $2.33 million to a man who lost his leg after drunkenly stumbling onto the path of an oncoming subway train.

 

 

Dustin Dibble fell on New York subway tracks, was hit by a train and had his leg severed in 2006.

 

Dustin Dibble, 25, landed in the subway tracks after a late night watching a hockey game at a bar with friends April 23, 2006. A downtown N train ran over him, severing his right leg.

 

According to Dibble's lawyer, Andrew Smiley, NYC Transit rather than Dibble bore primary responsibility for the accident because the subway driver had time to stop the train but did not.

 

Smiley added that Dibble's drunkenness did not excuse the driver, who said in a court deposition that he mistook Dibble for an inert object.

 

"They don't get a free pass as to why the person was on the tracks. They are trained to be able to look out for people on the tracks ... and people are known to be intoxicated by night," the lawyer said.

 

Dibble's blood-alcohol level at the time of the accident was .18, according to his lawyer, more than twice the legal limit had he been behind the wheel of a car.

 

The jury ruled Tuesday that Dibble was 35 percent responsible for the accident, so his monetary compensation was also reduced by 35 percent -- from $3,594,943 to $2,336,713.

 

The deficit-plagued MTA plans to appeal the decision, according to spokesman James Anyansi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SubwayGuy

SubwayGuy

Posted
Posted

like i said yet another reason the legal system is a joke, and this is why transit pays settlement to these clowns ecause of ridiculous judgements like this.

 

he was an idiot and should be accountable, he did something really stupid and didn't know when enough was enough or what to do to safely get home (stay away from the edge of the platform).

 

now because of these kinds of ridiculous lawsuits and the juries that give money to these basket cases/sob stories, people don't take responsibility for their own stupidity any more they just try and sue the pants off someone else when it was their fault in the first place.

 

what's next a guy suing a resturant when he bites his tongue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SevenEleven Dispatcher

SevenEleven

Posted
Posted

This is idiotic. Just like that woman who tried to commit suicide by getting hit by an (E) train. Regardless if the train had time to stop or not, how the hell do you stop a train doing 30, even 40 into a station without using all of the station without expecting to hit you..

 

C'mon now, this is just stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shortline Bus

Shortline Bus

Posted
Posted

As the famous Don King once said: 'only in America' could a clever lawyear win such a stupid lawsuit. And on top of the woman claiming to have post traumtic stress syndrom' also suing the MTA to allow her horse-size dog aboard subways something is not right. And now this idiot.

 

I am starting to believe a new law should in these types of legal cases. I feel that other than a severe injury(i.e losing your body part for life) or death occured in the incident there should be caps or limits anyone can win in a lawsuit. And if the lawsuit is considered a joke, have the plantiff and attorney pay all of the legal fee to the innocent affected party.:mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
duelingdragons

duelingdragons

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I feel this time, the Drunk man is the victim and should be awarded money since he has made the right decision to ride PT instead of driving which may kill him as well as pedestrians...

 

Please tell me you're kidding.

How is he a victim, in any sense of the word?

 

He got drunk, and in a drunken haze, fell onto the tracks. How is he a victim? That's just preposterous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
7LineFan

7LineFan

Posted
Posted
I feel this time, the Drunk man is the victim and should be awarded money since he has made the right decision to ride PT instead of driving which may kill him as well as pedestrians...

 

WHAT?????? Please tell me you're joking. He shouldn't have been drunk in the first place. Because of his own stupidity he got hurt.

 

The only message that this sends out is, get hurt in some way and sue the (MTA) because no matter how dumb the reason was that you got hurt, you'll win because it's always their fault. And that's wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
via White Plains Road

via White Plains Road

Posted
Posted
I feel this time, the Drunk man is the victim and should be awarded money since he has made the right decision to ride PT instead of driving which may kill him as well as pedestrians...

 

Wow you just say the most craziest things and expect ppl on here to respect you. So let get this straight....if he was road driving this car while drunk and he crashes off the road and into another person killing or injuring them. And he sues the other ppl, but knowingly he was in the wrong. You think he should be awarded money for causing something that was his fault?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
7LineFan

7LineFan

Posted
Posted
Well, it stated clearly, the Driver could stop and the Drunk Guy did the right thing of riding Public Transportation... So the Drink Guy is the victim and the Driver of the train is the suspect... Either way, you can still be drunk but need to get home without harm others...He is rewarded money for doing the right thhing as well, Pireod...

 

Drive a train and tell me how easy it is to stop that thing. Then do it in 200 feet, which is less than the length of a platform, with a drunk man writhing on the tracks in front of you that you can hardly see.

 

Just because he took public transportation doesn't mean he should be awarded money. If that's the reason we should all get money for it. And we know that's not gonna happen. Quite the opposite in fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
via White Plains Road

via White Plains Road

Posted
Posted
Well, it stated clearly, the Driver could stop and the Drunk Guy did the right thing of riding Public Transportation... So the Drink Guy is the victim and the Driver of the train is the suspect... Either way, you can still be drunk but need to get home without harm others...He is rewarded money for doing the right thhing as well, Pireod...

 

I guess you don't watch CSI or any of the crime drama shows or maybe even Cops. Lets get something straight.....when your drunk @ a bar the bartender take any your keys and calls you a cab and/or you have a designated driver. 2nd if you planning to take the train and drunk you really shouldn't be riding a train by yourself...why you can cause harm yourself and other ppl in the station and/or on the train such as fights, falling onto the tracks, walking into the columns and what not. So in other words he's no way the victim, he was drunk fool and clearly its his fault!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
via White Plains Road

via White Plains Road

Posted
Posted
@7LineFan and CurAke79:

It said it has time so it has time... No excuse about any feet, and the person may have been on the tracks in around the front of the platform... Clearly, the man did the right thing to take Public Transportation WHILE DRUNK!!!

 

You make no sense what's so ever and you clearly didn't read the words I even mentioned int he last statement. So go ahead and believe that non-sense your taking about and capping your words isn't scaring me nor anyone on here. Your a joke!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
via White Plains Road

via White Plains Road

Posted
Posted
Whatever... You don't understand, he did the right thing... Guess the bartender and driver of train should be the suspect(s)...

 

I hope you will not be a lawyer in the near future b/c your client will fire you so fast....you can't even make a clauseable point and/or fact. He's in the wrong not the bartender nor the T/O!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
7LineFan

7LineFan

Posted
Posted

AWWang. Dude. Taking public transportation alone while drunk is actually a dumb thing to do. You endanger your safety and the safety of the people around you. People cannot make rational decisions or even think straight while drunk. This man should have gotten a designated driver to take him home rather than ride the subway. (basically I'm saying the same things that CurAke said)

 

And the T/O cannot be held responsible if he could not see that it was a person on the tracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
via White Plains Road

via White Plains Road

Posted
Posted
AWWang. Dude. Taking public transportation alone while drunk is actually a dumb thing to do. You endanger your safety and the safety of the people around you. People cannot make rational decisions or even think straight while drunk. This man should have gotten a designated driver to take him home rather than ride the subway. (basically I'm saying the same things that CurAke said)

 

And the T/O cannot be held responsible if he could not see that it was a person on the tracks.

 

OMG....like thank you....he's not getting the point!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept