Drunk man run over by train awarded $2.3 million

[Liberal_in_LA]

From Jason Kessler
CNN

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.

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

[Lost in CT]

1. In all fairness pedestrians have the right of way

The train should have swerved to miss him.

According to testimony it kept going in a straight line "Like it was on rails"

Plus the man is a Rangers fan and honestly haven't they suffered enough this year?

[Suich]

5. LOL!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Welcome to DU, Lost in CT!

[Jazzgirl]

32. LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I work for a major freight railroad. I live in Arlington, TX. That was goooooooddddd!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RB TexLa]

2. P&C insurance companies hate proportionate responsibility.

They have been trying to get rid of it in Louisiana forever.

[bbinacan]

3. Friggin ridiculous. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. "The train had time to stop, but did not."

I guess "train which purposely struck man found liable" wasn't as interesting as a headline.

[havocmom]

7. train had been seen stalking the drunken stumbler. It had been spotted in the alley

behind his house on several occasions and had been seen following him home from local bars more than once

[rpannier]

9. LOL

That's funny

This week on Fox 'When Stalker Trains Attack!' Geraldo Rivera does a 3 hour investigative report on people that are stalked by trains in their homes, their places of business, their places of worship and even in public restrooms.' (zoom to see two closed toilet stalls. One with a pair of brown wingtips at the base of the door, the other with large subway wheels)

[TahitiNut]

25. To be fair, the brakes don't work when the target has a BAC over 0.08.

:eyes:

[alittlelark]

6. Questionable decision.

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

Dibble WAS an inert object.

I feel for the guy - I have also been guilty of stupid drunkenness, but lets be REAL.

[rpannier]

8. The Engineer of the train should sue him for the distress this guys drunken stupidity has caused him

for about $2,336,714

[SheilaT]

10. I have worked as a paralegal,

and been to trial twice. What I learned was that when you read such articles you have no clue what actually went on in the courtroom. Maybe Dibble's attorney was much more competent, and the MTA attorney did a lousy job of presenting his case. Maybe the jury consisted of people eager to give money away. The driver, saying he mistook Dibble for an inanimate object may have come across as callous.

It is easy to criticize a jury's decision when you haven't sat through the entire trial. I just wish everyone weren't so quick to do so.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Well it still makes a great story

You gotta admit. :hi:

[Krashkopf]

11. This is proof-positive that our legal system WORKS!

It doesn't matter WHY the man was incapacitated on the tracks . . . the fact is that a HUMAN BEING WAS incapacitated on the tracks . . .

The subway driver SAW the object on the tracks, and based on his/her training, the subway driver SHOULD HAVE recognized that "the object" might be a PERSON . . .

A reasonably prudent subway driver WOULD HAVE stopped the train to make sure "the object" was NOT a person . . .

This subway driver DID NOT STOP to make sure that "the object" was NOT a person - even though he/she had the time to do so - and the man lost his leg as a result . . .

The Jury did its job: finding that the subway driver was negligent; determining the amount of the man's damages; and finding that the man was 35% at fault for his own injuries . . . the Judge did his job by reducing the damages award by the man's share of the fault.

THANK GOD for the COMMON SENSE and the HUMANITY shown by this jury!

This is EXACTLY how the legal system is SUPPOSED to work!!

[varkam]

12. +1

I doesn't really matter why he was on the tracks. If the subway driver had enough time to stop and didn't, then they're liable.

[Krashkopf]

13. Challenge

I challenge anyone to post a thoughtful analysis explaining why this jury's decision was WRONG.

[Belial]

16. Now the train driver needs to sue..

for emotional distress for running over the guys leg. Clearly the person on the tracks showed a complete lack of responsibility and the train driver may be having nightmares..

[Krashkopf]

19. Assuming that the driver IS having nightmares . . .

The jury - the objective "finder of facts" - has looked at all of the evidence in the case and found that the driver is 65% at fault for the accident, and thus, 65% responsible for his own nightmares.

[varkam]

23. Except that he's not likely to recover for an accident that he was the primary cause of.

Most states have adopted a modified comparative negligence scheme wherein, if you are the one who is primarily responsible for an accident then recovery is barred for you.

[Deja Q]

46. +101

I hope they do counter-sue.

The guy was some drunk; not beaten and left there to die by some petty thug.

I oughtn't sound so harsh and the poor guy has psychological issues need addressing that led him to drinking*, possibly because of how "society" works, but $44 million under the complete set of circumstances?


* unless he's another pathetic party animal (must drunkards are in their 30s or older; most drunk in their early-mid 20s are pathetic party animals).

[aikoaiko]

18. Actually it did matter and thats why the award was reduced.

The drunk was fortunate to have a good lawyer and the jury only found him 35% responsible.

[Krashkopf]

20. The drunk was fortunate to have a JURY with enough common sense . . .

to understand that the accident could have been avoided - and the drunk would still have his leg - if the subway driver had acted REASONABLY.

[aikoaiko]

21. Yes, and if the amputee had acted reasonably by not being drunk ( public drunkenness is crime)

the injury would have been avoided too.

[varkam]

24. Would you say that if a woman is drunk in public and is raped that she is to blame?

After all - public drunkenness is a crime.

Point being, public drunkenness doesn't excuse other actors' criminal or negligent conduct towards that person.

[aikoaiko]

26. That is a weird comparison. almost frightening.

The driver did not intentionally run over the drunk -- he didn't think it was a person. And the drunk wasn't just drunk but put himself in jeopardy by falling into the tracks. I can't even imagine a situation that is equivalent to a drunk falling on to a subway track and a drunk woman's behavior.

And, point being, I didn't excuse the negligence of the train driver.

[varkam]

27. I, nor anyone else, said that the the driver intentionally ran over the drunk.

The issue is one of negligence. A reasonable person in the driver's position should have stopped the train as, after all, it was foreseeable that someone would fall onto the tracks regardless of whether or not they were drunk. You seem to think that the guy who fell on the tracks was at fault because he was drunk, and because being drunk in public is a crime. Maybe I misinterpreted that.

[aikoaiko]

29. He was partially at fault and the jury reduced the award because of it.

You likened the train driver to a rapist (which is usually a crime if intent) and then you likened the amputee who put himself in physical danger while drunk to a woman whose action are merely being drunk and victimized by someone with malice.

I find your comparison mysogynistic.

[varkam]

30. I am aware of that - but did you or did you not say that he was "fortunate" to have recovered?

Because, in my book, that would seem that you would think such an award to be undeserved.

You likened the train driver to a rapist (which is usually a crime if intent) and then you likened the amputee who put himself in physical danger while drunk to a woman whose action are merely being drunk and victimized by someone with malice.

I did so because you seemed to think that being drunk in public excused the actions of others towards that person. I made the comparison because I assumed that you are a decent human being who would, under no circumstances, excuse the rape of a woman on the basis that she was drunk. I merely made the comparison to get you to realize the untenability in your hypothesis.

I find your comparison mysonginistic

I find your hyperbole boring and uncreative.

[aikoaiko]

31. Being fortunate can mean receiving good stuff when receiving good stuff was uncertain.

And I do think he was fortunate that the jury found him to less than 50% responsible.


About the misoginistic comment: it appears that you agree with the jury decision (i.e., that the driver was partially responsible but so was the amputee to a lesser extent). I can't see blaming a drunk woman at all for beuing raped. I would think you would either except you made the analogy.

[varkam]

36. Except that's not *why* I made the analogy.

Good work on trying to paint me a bigot, though!

[aikoaiko]

38. Well, I do think it was a careless analogy, but I'm pretty sure you're an ok guy.

I don't mind holding you to what you write because you do the same to me and others.

[varkam]

39. That's fine, except for a couple of things:

1) I'm not trying to get out of what I wrote and 2) you're still missing the point of why I made the comparison. I invite you to re-read this ST to try and figure that one out. If you still are confused, I don't think I can help you.

[aikoaiko]

40. Let me ask you two questions.

1. Was the drunk partially responsible for his leg being amputated in your opinion?

2. Is a drunk rape victim ever partially responsible for being raped?

[varkam]

41. I see you still haven't caught on.

I believe you can infer my answers to those questions from my previous post in this ST that drunkeness does not excuse the conduct of others - an opinion which, at least initially, you did not seem to share.

[aikoaiko]

43. It only seemed that way because you didn't understand the word fortunate.

[varkam]

44. Oh no, I understood.

Plus the "only 35% responsible" seems to imply that you thought it was generous. Tell me, how responsible do you feel he was?

[aikoaiko]

49. At least 50% based on the article.

But I could see reasonable people choosing a little more or a little less. It really depends on the evidence presented at the trial which news accounts typically report poorly.

So I've played along with you and answered your questions, why do you dodge mine?

How would you partition the responsibility based on what you know? Do you agree with the jury that the drunk was partially responsible?

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. He can buy top shelf liquor now!

:)

[JVS]

17. If he could only reach it from his wheelchair.

Ok. That was bad of me. I'm going to hell.

[Liberal_in_LA]

34. Bad bad. lol

[bobbert]

22. I always think it's annoying when subway trains move at a crawl near a stop and take forever to stop

I guess it's a lot safer, but I feel a lot of new yorkers would prefer the driver that rushes people from stop to stop.

[jmowreader]

28. Bombs are "inert" objects too...just sayin'...

There are many "inert" objects that can be laying on railroad tracks, that you don't want to hit because they will totally fuck your train up. This thing could have been anything. This time it was Dustin Dibble's drunk ass; next time it could be something that could derail the train. Don't they teach people to stop trains when there's something in the way?

The driver's flipping burgers at Wendy's now, right?

[Krashkopf]

33. Spot on

There are many "inert" objects that can be laying on railroad tracks, that you don't want to hit because they will totally fuck your train up. This thing could have been anything. This time it was Dustin Dibble's drunk ass; next time it could be something that could derail the train.

Yep. Spot on.

[XemaSab]

35. YESTERDAY

I was driving down a local highway. I stopped for a red light along the highway, and a man wearing black clothes crossed at the crosswalk.

HE WAS TEXTING ON THE PHONE WHILE CROSSING THE STREET!

THEN he began to walk across the train tracks FAR from nearest crossing. HE WAS STILL TEXTING ON THE PHONE!!!!!

I honked at him and he looked at me like WTF, and went right back to his phone! :o

EDIT: DID I MENTION IT WAS 10:00 AT NIGHT???? :o

[Liberal_in_LA]

37. A few months ago a young women, chatting on her cell phone, walked against the red light.

The cars slowed down in confusion, like WTF? The young woman got confused for a moment like 'WTF are these cars doing coming so close to me?' But she never stopped talking on the phone. Reached the other curb not realizing what she had done.

[Deja Q]

48. Utterly stupid, but everybody else would be blamed for her stupidity.

No, do not walk in the middle of the road, prattling into the cell phone or texting.

No, do not drive while texting. Especially if one is already drunk. There was a car crash recently, the dipshit was texting while driving (drunk) and hit a tree and died. Ridiculous. Just ridiculous. And this one was another young 20-something partygoing damn fool.

[book_worm]

42. I guess it pays to be a stupid drunk.

[Deja Q]

47. The overaged brat was 25. Still in his "partying years".

If he's an actual alcoholic due to depression or other factors, color me surprised. It's possible, but qualifying factors would still point the most likely conclusion that he is another partygoing jock loser. I think there's a song about partygoers too: "I'm a party animal, short and stout. Here is my handle, d'you wanna see my spout?" is frequently sung. Usually in the bathroom as the singer is addressing the toilet bowl and needs to take a whiz.

Maybe there should be a trial for that. (no joke)

[Deja Q]

45. WHIP OUT THE BOOZE, IT'S PARTY TIME!!

Generation Y really has some good ideas on how to make money... Just as Britney, Jessica, or Dibble.

[olegramps]

50. I guess I just don't get it.

The person driving the train admits that he saw what he thought was an inert object on the tracks. Why wouldn't he stop? Couldn't it have derailed the train causing serious injury to many if not death. A guy would appear to be a pretty large object. I wonder if the subway driver actually was even watching. Doesn't his excuse sound a bit lame? Its a wonder that more people haven't been killed. It always scared me a bit to be waiting for the subway and being pushed onto the tracks.