Again?

He then decided to climb up on the train roof.

There, investigators believe, he touched the 25,000-volt overhead wire that powers the train and set himself on fire. He suffered third-degree burns over 85 percent of his body, and doctors eventually had to amputate his left hand and left leg.

im facepalming so hard right now

Amtrak should clean up their act. This stuff just keeps happening.

There should be a tag for audacious actions like this one

Such ridiculous lawsuits are virtually unknown in systems in which the loser pays the winner's costs, as in England. They are a good argument for adopting the same rule in the United States.

THIS

I can't believe Brian Hopkins didn't learn his lesson the first time.

/have enough people complained about the repeat yet?
//how about enough about people complaining about people complaining about it being a repeat?
///WHAT THEN!?!?!

FTA: "Around 4 a.m. two years ago one Brian Hopkins, 24, apparently tried to get into one of Amtrak's Acela trains parked at South Station - closed at that hour - but could not. He then decided to climb up on the train roof.

There, investigators believe, he touched the 25,000-volt overhead wire that powers the train and set himself on fire. He suffered third-degree burns over 85 percent of his body, and doctors eventually had to amputate his left hand and left leg.

He's lucky to be alive. But in this litigious society of ours that's never enough. Now he and his parents have sued Amtrak."

See, this is all I needed to read from TA.

He should have learned the first time.

ZoeNekros: I can't believe Brian Hopkins didn't learn his lesson the first time.

/have enough people complained about the repeat yet?
//how about enough about people complaining about people complaining about it being a repeat?
///WHAT THEN!?!?!

BACON!!!!!

piercer310

He should have learned the first time.


Darn right. He burned 85% of his body the first time AND the second time - that's 170%. Ouchie.

Exactly where does one park electric trains if not at a train station or yard? At WalMart? It's a shame he's still alive.

Englebert Slaptyback: piercer310

He should have learned the first time.


Darn right. He burned 85% of his body the first time AND the second time - that's 170%. Ouchie.

85%? You mean it was 170 proof.

Oh, and, isn't this FAIL? Yea he's a dumbass, but it takes a special dumbass to FAIL. Dumbass usually is a subset for FAIL.

/Feels the FAIL tag market rubber-banded in usage.

Is it wrong to think that the world would have been better off if he had just died instead?

ReverendJasen: Is it wrong to think that the world would have been better off if he had just died instead?

The would would have been a better place if we made his lawyer touch the live wire.

Der.

/goes back to bed

Somehow I have the sad feeling that this farktard will win the lawsuit.

ReverendJasen: Is it wrong to think that the world would have been better off if he had just died instead?

Not in the slightest.

Is it wrong to want to be the one to pull the trigger on him?

ReverendJasen: Is it wrong to think that the world would have been better off if he had just died instead?

This.

But since he survived, the world would be better off if he was left infertile.

They should force permanent sterilization on people who survive this kind of stupid shiat.

The only pertinent line in the whole article:

"...but he failed."

Express Train to Bonertown: Such ridiculous lawsuits are virtually unknown in systems in which the loser pays the winner's costs, as in England. They are a good argument for adopting the same rule in the United States.

THIS

Make the lawyer pay. Or throw "repeat offenders" out of (off of?) the bar. Maybe the prospect of losing money outweighs the greed in potentially making money and they'll start laughing these clowns out of the office before it can even make it far enough to get laughed out of court.

In some businesses, its win some - lose some. In the law business, its win some - break even on some. It seems to be in the best interest for a lawyer to take the chance. And that screws over the best interest of society.

This kind of crap makes my blood boil. The kid is a godamn idiot. How is that Amtrak's fault? There is only one person to blame here. The idiot that climbed on top of the train. I hope Amtrak not only gets the case dismissed but successfully sues him for contaminating/damaging their wires.

There was a case in my area recently that also totally pissed me off but for slightly different reasons. Apparently this idiot 15 year old threw a 2 1/2 lb rock off a freeway overpass at a passing truck. The rock went right through the window rendering the driver permanently mentally/physically disabled. So what does the injured drivers family do? They sue the state for not having a fence of some sort on the overpass and they sue the truck manufacturer for the window not being able to deflect the rock. WTF?? I am sympathetic to them given their loss, however, no way in hell should the state (really the taxpayers, you and I) or the truck manufacturer be held liable. The only person responsible is the 15 yr old that threw the rock, and debatably his parents. No non-military vehicle is manufactured with the intent of deflecting 2.5 lb rocks with its windows. Its just not a reasonable design requirement. Extending the logic a tiny bit would leave the truck manufacturer liable if a comet fell from the sky and crushed the truck. Hey, it should have been able to deflect it. The state also cannot be expected to make every freeway completely inaccessible to a potential rock thrower. It wouldnt even be possible. While I certainly hope that the family finds a way to cover the poor drivers medical bills and needs, they are disgusting creeps if they do it by suing totally blameless parties.

Express Train to Bonertown: Such ridiculous lawsuits are virtually unknown in systems in which the loser pays the winner's costs, as in England. They are a good argument for adopting the same rule in the United States.

THIS

Whenever they bring this up, lawyers always scoff and say, "Well that's the 'English System,'" and the discussion ends there.

This is ridiculous. Fortunately, from what I know of our legal culture, no court will award this guy damages.

This would be like a court awarding damages to a dumbass who spilt hot coffee on themselves and then sued the company that served it to them for not serving the coffee cold, and we all know that that could never happen!

/lol America
//lol McDonalds

Being 24 and knowing you're not going to get any action with the females because you happen to be a dumbass that grabbed a 25,000 volt line and fried you manparts into oblivion must really suck.

THANK GOD FOR DEAD TESTICLES

/Obscure?

Express Train to Bonertown: Such ridiculous lawsuits are virtually unknown in systems in which the loser pays the winner's costs, as in England. They are a good argument for adopting the same rule in the United States.

THIS

Except that a "loser pays" system makes it impossible for anybody to sue a large corporation, regardless of the merit of the suit. In any suit of any substance the legal costs to the corporation are going to run into the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you don't have money, are you going to risk filing that lawsuit, even if it has merit, on the risk you lose and find yourself owing that amount of money for the corporation's legal costs?

Courts have begun to reject suits filed by "serial" litigators, both non-lawyers and lawyers alike, and I've seen bar association discipline against lawyers who repeatedly bring frivolous suits. We really don't need to go any further than that.

Maybe he can get the $54 million pants judge to ejudicate the case.

I'm gonna go there and point out he was a New Yorker, and most likely a Yankees fan...

Go Sox!

oh, and here's a file photo of him before his amputation. He's the one in the middle with the weird skin after the accident. Hair to boot too.

alacoco: Express Train to Bonertown: Such ridiculous lawsuits are virtually unknown in systems in which the loser pays the winner's costs, as in England. They are a good argument for adopting the same rule in the United States.

THIS

Make the lawyer pay. Or throw "repeat offenders" out of (off of?) the bar. Maybe the prospect of losing money outweighs the greed in potentially making money and they'll start laughing these clowns out of the office before it can even make it far enough to get laughed out of court.

In some businesses, its win some - lose some. In the law business, its win some - break even on some. It seems to be in the best interest for a lawyer to take the chance. And that screws over the best interest of society.

Or if Person A sues Person B for X dollars and loses then Person A must pay Person B the amount Person A tried to sue for. I know if I was thinking about suing someone for a million bucks but was looking at the prospect of having to pay that million if I lost the case, I would think twice about a BS law suit.

I blame Darwin for not grabbing this bone head when he had the chance.

Warnings like this are everywhere on the Boston T and around the Acela.



Hopefully he's sterile now.

mister aj: This is ridiculous. Fortunately, from what I know of our legal culture, no court will award this guy damages.

This would be like a court awarding damages to a dumbass who spilt hot coffee on themselves and then sued the company that served it to them for not serving the coffee cold, and we all know that that could never happen!

First: Passenger Carriers are held to an "extreme standard of care" which means that anyone who hurts themselves as a result of their trains, the Rail Road Company is liable. Silly, I know, but it stems from the HUGE amount of deaths the RR's caused back in the 1800's and early 1900's.

Second: The hot coffee incident was won because McDonald's had their coffee heated to near boiling temperatures which almost guaranteed that if anyone touched it it would burn them. There were inter office memo's about it and McDonald's actually planned on 100's of people burning themselves and settling the lawsuits. There was one case that took it to trial to make McDonald's lower the temperature just a little bit.

Oh, and the exorbitant sum they asked for in damages? 3 days of coffee sales.

Any who, even though this guy is an utter retard, he might win. Sad.

How many more times will this story be posted....last years news....

Wow, that dude is an hero.

Legal systems where the loser pays the winner's costs do not prevent frivilous lawsuits, they just prevent ALL lawsuits from poor people. Nice of the author to throw that horsepuck in there at the end.


They should charge him for the power he wasted, then for criminal trespass, then for criminal endangerment (he was on fire, that could've.... started a fire). Then offer to drop the charges if just shuts up and f's off.

You also don't find these kind of lawsuits in countries that guarantee a minimum level of health care for their citizens. Why? Because if you hurt yourself and get stuck with a huge emergency room bill, the cost gets spread over the populace via the tax system. You don't have to start suing people and companies in hopes of finding someone else to pay your medical bills.

Even if you *have* health insurance, I've heard of the health insurer requiring that the accident victim sue any and all parties who could possibly be to blame for the accident, and collect from them to whatever extent he can, before the health insurer will kick in for the balance of the cost of treatment. (Typically this happens with car accidents, and that's where you sometimes get weird situations with spouses suing each other and whatnot.)

"Loser pays" is a great way to keep the general public from suing large corporations. And lawsuits are sometimes the only way the public has of forcing large corporations to behave decently. Unfortunately one of the effects of the arrangement we have here in the U.S. is that some number of frivolous lawsuits get filed every year. Yes, this sucks, but all the alternatives I can think of suck worse.

number8: Except that a "loser pays" system makes it impossible for anybody to sue a large corporation, regardless of the merit of the suit. In any suit of any substance the legal costs to the corporation are going to run into the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you don't have money, are you going to risk filing that lawsuit, even if it has merit, on the risk you lose and find yourself owing that amount of money for the corporation's legal costs?

If it's a good case, YES.

If it's a fivolous case, No.

/That's why it works.

BoSchembechler: The hot coffee incident was won because McDonald's had their coffee heated to near boiling temperatures which almost guaranteed that if anyone touched it it would burn them. There were inter office memo's about it and McDonald's actually planned on 100's of people burning themselves and settling the lawsuits. There was one case that took it to trial to make McDonald's lower the temperature just a little bit.

Oh, and the exorbitant sum they asked for in damages? 3 days of coffee sales.

::sigh::

Where to start?

1) ALL coffee is made with water at "near boiling temperatures".
See, for example, this page: http://www.bunn.com/retail/bunn_difference.html (new window), where they mention "the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200°." Also, see this page: http://www.bunn.com/retail/dos_donts.html (new window), which says "water at 200° Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature)".
Thirdly, the National Coffee Association Of USA, Inc. The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71 (new window)

2) "temperatures which almost guaranteed that if anyone touched it it would burn them"??? The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. That's hardly 'almost guaranteed to burn'.

3) "There were inter office memo's about it and McDonald's actually planned on 100's of people burning themselves and settling the lawsuits."

Cite, please

4) "There was one case that took it to trial to make McDonald's lower the temperature just a little bit."

Wrong. "Although Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defend the lawsuit by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee after the suit, ... McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80-90 °C (176-194 °F...."

I know this is Fark, but maybe, just maybe people could learn a little something about the topic before posting?

Glendale: Exactly where does one park electric trains if not at a train station or yard? At WalMart? It's a shame he's still alive.

Its just another litigation generating lawyer looking to make a buck. He knows there is no way in hell is going to win but the railroad will settle because it is cheaper than paying their lawyers through a whole trial.

geekbikerskum:

"Loser pays" is a great way to keep the general public from suing large corporations. And lawsuits are sometimes the only way the public has of forcing large corporations to behave decently. Unfortunately one of the effects of the arrangement we have here in the U.S. is that some number of frivolous lawsuits get filed every year. Yes, this sucks, but all the alternatives I can think of suck worse.

Perhaps when the plaintiff's action involves a criminal act they can't sue for being injured when if they merely followed the law they wouldn't have been injured.

fredklein: number8: Except that a "loser pays" system makes it impossible for anybody to sue a large corporation, regardless of the merit of the suit. In any suit of any substance the legal costs to the corporation are going to run into the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you don't have money, are you going to risk filing that lawsuit, even if it has merit, on the risk you lose and find yourself owing that amount of money for the corporation's legal costs?

If it's a good case, YES.

If it's a fivolous case, No.

/That's why it works.

Except people lose "good cases" all the time. Even if you knew you had a 90% chance of winning, would you risk it?

"Loser pays" is generally aimed at frivolous lawsuits; but especially the huge, single-person tort cases that have become common and costly here in the US. The reason people lose "good cases" is because it's nearly impossible for ONE person to prove anything against an entire company with a preponderance of evidence such that they can win.

The only certain way to take on a large corporation is a class-action suit, whereby many people present a great deal of evidence usually over a long period of time, thus negating the corporation's monetary and legal advantage over one person. Large class-action suits have a much better chance of winning--and winning big--than a one-person against the system attempt that Hollywood loves so much.

Because, sad to say, if Joe Blow tries to sue Mondo Corp because something went wrong with their widget, it most likely IS a frivolous lawsuit. At the very least, he's going to have trouble proving it wasn't an aberrant case. But if he gets 1000 other people with the same widget problem, Mondo Corp's got an issue to deal with.

There is a lesson to be learned. If you ever find an injured tresspasser, do NOT call an ambulance, let him die, it's cheaper.

number8: Except people lose "good cases" all the time.

Then, by definition, that case was not good enough. :-)


/Fine. Make the 'loser pays' optional, something the judge can use against people who abuse the system.

I'll pinch hit, here...

fredklein:
1) ALL coffee is made with water at "near boiling temperatures".
See, for example, this page: http://www.bunn.com/retail/bunn_difference.html (new window), where they mention "the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200°." Also, see this page: http://www.bunn.com/retail/dos_donts.html (new window), which says "water at 200° Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature)".
Thirdly, the National Coffee Association Of USA, Inc. The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71 (new window)


Don't confuse brewing temperature with serving temperature -- are you trying to argue that people should be handed 200 degree cups? It seems the general consensus is that such beverages should be served at 140-160 degrees. So run the coffee through a cooler that reduces the temperature to 160 before serving? It'll only add a penny a cup in costs.

2) "temperatures which almost guaranteed that if anyone touched it it would burn them"??? The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. That's hardly 'almost guaranteed to burn'.


If you really think there were only 700 people who burned themselves on McDonalds coffee, then you're nuts. That's just the number of people who had serious enough burns that they went to doctors, lawyered up and convinced McDonalds to settle AFTER leaving something on the public record. (Remember, when McDonalds settles before the case goes to court, there will be no trail to trace.)

3) "There were inter office memo's about it and McDonald's actually planned on 100's of people burning themselves and settling the lawsuits."

Cite, please


I can't cite, but it's common sense. The 3 seconds that it takes to cause a 3rd degree burn makes it obvious that it'll happen. Any big corporation will weigh the expected cost of lawsuits. Remember the Pinto?


4) "There was one case that took it to trial to make McDonald's lower the temperature just a little bit."

Wrong. "Although Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defend the lawsuit by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee after the suit, ... McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80-90 °C (176-194 °F...."


That's only proof that they should have awarded more damages, something on the order of a year or decade's worth of coffee proceeds. The point of punitive damages is to make it uneconomical to maintain business practices that are unethical.

Enigmamf: Don't confuse brewing temperature with serving temperature

It seems you are the one who is confused. Look at the link from the National Coffee Association (it's an association made to promote the sales of coffee. They have absolutely no reason to provide bad/dangerous instructions on how to prepare/serve their product, and very good reasons to give the correct instructions.) It specifically says "If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit."". McDonalds had theirs at "180-190 degrees".

Also, check out this link (which I linked to above) http://www.bunn.com/retail/dos_donts.html (new window). It says that if your coffee ends up "with a temperature below 175° F", that you should NOT reheat it. SO, coffee should definately be served ABOVE 175°.

There are lots of coffee maker manuals available online.

...Not to mention completely non-electric things like carafes "The carafe is so efficient that it keeps coffee hot for up to 4 hours. Our tests indicated the coffee was still 181 degrees F after 1 hour..." Link (new window), or google it.
ABC.com has this (new window) to say: "For best flavor, coffee should brew between 190 degrees and 205 degrees for 90 percent of the time.
...
The temperature of coffee at the end of brewing and afterward on the hot plate or an insulated carafe should never be below 170 degrees"

Heck, there are even books on the subject... as this Link says (new window) "...coffee should be held at about 185 degrees F..."

How much more do you need?


That's just the number of people who had serious enough burns that they went to doctors, lawyered up and convinced McDonalds to settle AFTER leaving something on the public record.

Almost right. That's the number of people who complained to McDonalds. Whether or not they 'lawyered up' or collected any cash from McDonalds is unknown.

Besides, even if the number of people who complained was 1/4 the number of people whe were burned, that's still only one burn for every 6,000,000 cups of coffee. One in six million is still not unreasonably dangerous.


The 3 seconds that it takes to cause a 3rd degree burn

Actually, Stella Liebeck sat in the pool of coffee for 7 seconds.


That's only proof that they should have awarded more damages, something on the order of a year or decade's worth of coffee proceeds. The point of punitive damages is to make it uneconomical to maintain business practices that are unethical.

Objection! Facts not in evidence! You have not proven that their practices (which are in line with every other fast-food restaurant And the National Coffee Association's recommendations) are "unethical".

fredklein: I know this is Fark, but maybe, just maybe people could learn a little something about the topic before posting?

Dude, you sound like a lot of fun.

I always wonder why every one of theses stories pretty much instantly devolves to a heated argument about McDonald's coffee.

/but not for long