Now if only I could find someone to sue…
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.
—From CNN.com
The driver said he mistook the passed out drunk for "an inert object," which means he must've been passed out pretty damn hard, and not even conscious enough to try to get up when the train pulled in. Have you ever been in a subway/underground transit station? Those motherfucking trains are LOUD. Sure, I've passed out before in my life … but only maybe once or twice did I pass out hard enough that I wouldn't have noticed a fucking subway train rattling and screeching down a track towards me.
(Of course, there's also the distinct possibility that the driver realized it was a person, but just figured they were either dead, or just another drunk-ass bum the world would be better without. That'll teach you to be able to tell the difference between a bum and a drunk-ass baby yuppie.)
So, I figure if this dumbfuck got over $2,000,000 for passing out on a subway track, there ought to be someone I can hit for maybe a measly $500,000 for breaking my rib(s)? Maybe sue the snowmachine company for not having track studs that automatically deploy when the control mechanism detects a skid?
Of course, I wouldn't do that. That would be stupid. Hell, even if I were the guy who lost his leg, I'd be hard-pressed to convince myself I wasn't solely responsible for getting so fucking hammered I passed out on the fucking subway tracks. I suppose there is a valid argument to be made for making sure the tracks are well-lit enough that a driver can tell the difference between an abandoned jacket and a human being's leg. There might also be a valid argument for a standing policy requiring drivers to stop for any object on the tracks in a station area.
But really? This isn't the elderly woman who spilled damn-near-boiling coffee in her lap, courtesy of McDonalds. It's perfectly reasonable to assume when you buy coffee, it's not going to be hot enough to burn all the skin off the inside of your mouth (or 3rd-degree-blister your crotch). It's not reasonable in any way to assume you can pass the fuck out on some train tracks, and not get run over.
Perhaps Mr. Dibble just shouldn't use rail-based transport unless it's one of those walled-off airport trams, where the doors automatically (and only) open when the train pulls in? Or maybe Mr. Dibble ought to get friends with big enough balls to try and get him up when he falls in front of large, oncoming vehicles? Surely the driver couldn't have mistaken 3–4 drunk-ass baby yuppies for a drunk-ass unconscious bum, could he?
Fucking litigation-crazy Americans. >=/
…infecting the rest of the world with this shit too.
Seriously, there should be a law saying that if you're doing something stupid or illegal, it doesn't matter what the fuck happens to you it's your own damned fault.
Fall through a skylight while trying to steal a floodlight off the roof and become a quadriplegic? Congratulations on your new wheelchair (which you can pay for yourself), dickhead.
Trip over a loose tile in someone's darkened kitchen while trying to steal their silverwear and put out an eye with a knife someone left on the bench? Congratualtions, you're now a pirate. Dickhead.
Decide to get shitfaced enough that you're too fucking stupid to avoid passing out on train tracks and lose a leg Oh, hey, still a pirate. Grats, dickhead.
The moral of the story is that if you're going to run over a drunk with your train, make sure the idiot dies – cut his head off, not his leg – and do the gene pool a favour.
Thus endeth the outpouring of sympathy.
18th February 2009 at 6:36 pm | permalink |"if you're going to run over a drunk with your train, make sure the idiot dies"
Funny, a friend of mine years ago told me the same thing about shooting someone in self-defense. Otherwise, my now-crippled, would-be rapist could sue me for damages.
Now, of course you expect the rapist to be fucked in the head enough to think that's fair … but what the fuck is wrong with a jury that would approve an award?!
Ugh.
18th February 2009 at 7:42 pm | permalink |@ grimbles: "Seriously, there should be a law saying that if you're doing something stupid or illegal, it doesn't matter what the fuck happens to you it's your own damned fault."
There is a law for this. It's called Contributory Negligence.
18th February 2009 at 11:28 pm | permalink |Finnish law states that nobody is allowed to financially gain from lawsuits (or something along those lines). What it does mean is that compensation is exactly that; compensation. For example, if someone in a car runs into you when walking across the road, and knock you over you will get compensation for the damages caused, such as loss of income. You will also get a bit of money for such things as physical distress. You will not, however, get money to get rich or take revenge on the one who hit you.
19th February 2009 at 3:25 am | permalink |U.S.A and the rest of the world desperately needs this amended to their legal systems.
And with regards to coffee, you're supposed to use your senses to detect whether it's of drinking temperature or not. Try dipping your finger in it before taking a big gulp…. or please let Darwin's theories take over.
@Becca: Well, maybe that law should be applied a little more often? Although it sounds like that would be the reason his award was reduced by 35% (the jury found him 35% responsible) … so maybe the law just needed to be applied a little more forcefully. heh
@JS: Whether coffee is "drinking temperature" or not was not the problem in that case. The problem in that case was the coffee being hot enough to cause second and third degree burns when it spilled in the woman's lap (I don't believe she'd taken a sip of it yet). Coffee should NEVER be that hot, hence the reason McDonalds got slapped (oh, and there was the cost of the surgery to repair the burns to the victim's genitals and inner thighs)
And in the subway case, I think $2 million isn't such a bad sum for compensatory damages for losing your leg. Prosthetics are expensive, and you are permanently disabled and all. However, if losing your leg was your own stupid drunk fault? That's another story.
19th February 2009 at 10:54 am | permalink |@ alpha: Well, there's "contributory negligence" and "comparative negligence," and they actually work opposite of what it sounds like (recalling from my "Torts" class).
Contributory negligence generally reduces the amount of an award by the amount that the "victim" contributed to the tort.
On the other hand, comparative negligence is generally held to completely bar any claim if the victim contributed even 1% to the tort.
Interpretation and application varies from state to state, and some states use "contributory negligence" when they mean "comparative negligence" and vice-versa. Therefore, your mileage may vary, not available in all states, batteries not included, and may cause headaches, dizziness, or anal leakage.
Now I need a drink …
19th February 2009 at 2:37 pm | permalink |Yeesh. Have a drink for me while you're at it!
19th February 2009 at 2:56 pm | permalink |Assumption of risk should be more significant to this case than it obviously was. By no means am I a teetotaler, I likes my alcohols. But if you get shit-faced by choice, then you should be responsible for anything that happens to you after that. We all know that being majorly drunk prevents you from exercising common sense. You get drunk with that knowledge. Anything that happens after you get drunk should be legally classified as "Your own fucking fault, live with it." Or, y'know, whatever that is in latin to make it look fancier.
19th February 2009 at 5:12 pm | permalink |"tui fucking improvidus, tui fucking iustita."
19th February 2009 at 11:41 pm | permalink |Profound
20th February 2009 at 1:57 am | permalink |http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIllRdSzSug
26th February 2009 at 2:34 am | permalink |Gotta have a bit of Rage every now and then =p
26th February 2009 at 2:40 am | permalink |That's fucking ridiculous. His own fault, I'd say. In fact, if I were him, I would've thought myself lucky to still be alive. WTF.
26th February 2009 at 5:01 pm | permalink |@grimbles & Amanda: Hear, hear.
26th February 2009 at 6:58 pm | permalink |As the now infamous quote goes…
"I think we should remove the safety labels off everything and the let the problem solve itself."
27th February 2009 at 1:59 pm | permalink |@charlie: I had a friend who used to recommend taking the safety guards off everything too. hehe
27th February 2009 at 7:42 pm | permalink |Come on motherfuckers! Do you really believe passing out drunk qualifies for a fucking death sentence? If the asshole subway driver had time to stop, it’s his fucking duty as a human being to do so. What the fuck are you folks saying? One fucking drunken mistake and the subway dude can act as police, jury and executioner? Haven’t y’all been drunk? If you know what the hell you’re doin’ when you’re drunk, you haven’t been drunk enough!
28th February 2009 at 4:59 am | permalink |To begin with, it's '*judge*, jury and executioner.'
You obviously missed the part where the 'asshole' driver said he thought it was an inanimate object. Someone passed out badly enough to not wake up to a subway train is pretty damned inanimate, and while I've not been to the particular station, underground stations that I have been at, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a person and just an old jacket on the tracks. And given the amount of shit that gets dumped, if you stopped for everything vaguely human-sized, trains would never get anywhere.
As for passing out drunk on subway tracks? Yes, I think if you're dumb enough to get that drunk, whatever accident you get in is your own damned fault. Besides, he lost a leg, not his life, so it's not a death sentence. Legally, people are considered responsible for whatever they do while drunk. Being drunk doesn't stop you getting jailed for beating the crap out of someone, or raping someone, or stealing and crashing a car. It's pretty common knowledge that if you get trashed you're likely to do stupid shit. If you choose to get trashed, you're no less responsible for what you do, and that includes stupid shit like walking out in front of a car, or falling asleep on train tracks.
28th February 2009 at 5:32 am | permalink |You should know by now, English is not my native language, so I make mistakes, dah!
28th February 2009 at 7:08 am | permalink |Alcohol is a part of western culture and has been for a fucking long time. If we want it to continue to be part of the culture it’s about fucking time we realize there’s some bad side affects to it. You can’t have only the nice, cozy part of it. As for the subway driver who thought it was a jacket? It must have been a big motherfucking jacket shaped as a human being with feet on it. If you have that bad eyesight, you perhaps should consider a different job? I know he “just” lost a leg, but you said earlier that he should have lost his head instead, and that’s a death sentence in my book.
Ofcourse you’re responsible for the amount of alcohol you put inside your body, but then again as you probably know, it only takes one drink to tip over. You can drink, be happy and feel fine and that ONE drink can send you in to la la land and from there on you’re not sane anymore and you don’t know what the hell you’re doing. You should know that, being aussie and all? That’s what I mean about taking responsibility for keeping alcohol as a part of our culture.
Because, obviously, all Aussies ar piss-heads, just like all Americans are stupid ethnocentric bigots, and all Swedes talk like a muppet.
I don't know what kind of alcohol tollerance you must have to go from feeling nothing to completely smashed and no longer in control of your action. Honestly, I've never found where the exact tipping point is because I've made the very deliberate choice to not get that drunk *because it's dangerous*. But I've gone as much as four drinks beyond when you start feeling fuzzy, and not hit the 'lying down on train tracks' mark. And I'm not a regular drinker, so my tolerance would likely be below average.
I'd forgotten the losing head thing. But I still stand by it. If he'd done something else that was equally stupid, like get behind the wheel, he could have killed someone. If he wandered out onto a street without looking, his brains could have ended up all over someone's windscreen and fucking scarred them for life – if they didn't die because they swerved into a tree.
Saying 'it only takes one drink' seems to be relieving that guy of responsibility for his actions, which seems to contradict everything else you've said. The point here is that he drank, knowing what alcohol can do to you. He drank a lot. He then left his apartment, not only putting himself at risk but anyone he came in contact with. Not everyone who drinks does stuff like that. But not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer. Not everyone who speeds hits pedestrians. We still consider it "your own damned fault" if a smoker dies from lung cancer, so why the hell should a drinker getting maimed or dying from being drunk be any different?
28th February 2009 at 6:03 pm | permalink |Given that alcohol IS a big part of Western culture, and has been pretty much since we stopped being nomadic, it should be pretty well understood that drinking too much makes you do stupid shit, and should therefore be undertaken with a bit of caution.
Getting so drunk that an oncoming train won't wake you up when you pass out? That is not "one drink too many" … I drink quite a lot, on a rather frequent basis, and there is a goooood long while that you know damn well you're hammered, but you're not going to just fall over and pass out in front of a train. I'd wager this guy probably wasn't a first-time drinker either, so he'd've had some idea how drunk he was getting long before he got drunk enough to pass out on the subway tracks.
So, in short, I find it a lot easier to understand how the driver might mistake a passed out person for an inanimate object (we don't know how well lit the tracks are, or whether he was partially/mostly hidden in shadow), than how a person could get that rip-roaring drunk on accident.
28th February 2009 at 8:16 pm | permalink |People are going to continue to drink and get hammered in the future too. Of course you’re responsible for what you’re doing, if you get hit by a car and fucking die, you fucking die, that’s it. But I got the impression that people here want insane punishment for passing out drunk that don’t actually fit the “crime.”
1st March 2009 at 4:57 am | permalink |I had a discussion with a guy here about something similar once. If you’re riding a bicycle and want to cross the road at one of these crossroad things, you have to get of your bike and roll it across you can’t ride it over, you will get a fine if the police sees you. If you get hit by a car it’s basically your own damned fault. So this guy says to me if he sees someone riding their bike across he will not stop but rather run the person down with his car. Death sentence or severe injury for this sort of thing is, well, rather harsh, don’t you think? And the biker is probably not even drunk.
Only the driver of that train knows exactly what he saw, but IF he knew it was a guy lying there and just couldn’t be bothered to hit the brakes, he would basically be a murderer if the guy was to loose his head instead of his leg.
That bike thing sounds like a stupid legality thing rather than an actual safety thing. I may be wrong. But the thing is, we all do dangerous stuff every day (micromort's an interesting concept), we don't know when we might get randomly smooshed by an errent piano/anvil/car. But sensibly, we mitigate those risks. You wear a helmet while riding a motorbike, because if you don't and you come off, you might well leave your brain scraped across the bitumen. Choosing to drink to the point where you have no real control over your actions is basically the same as taking off your helmet and speeding down a one-way street. The odds of death might not be as high (they may well be, conversely) but you *know* when you drink that you'll do stupid shit. You *know* that stupid shit is dangerous. So when you choose to drink that much, you assume responsibility for any of the stupid dangerous shit you do, and the outcome, whatever it is.
And of course if the driver saw it was a guy, saw that he was breathing and just rolled on over, he's a murderer. Although in some jurisdictions it'd be called manslaughter. Though the drunk fuckwit would still share responsibility for his own demise.
But given how long it takes for trains to slow down, there's only a very small percentage of the time – basically right before the train stops, i'd guess maybe a one-or-two second window at each station – that a driver would be able to see enough detail to determine that 'blob' was in fact a person, but still have enough time to stop.
1st March 2009 at 3:57 pm | permalink |