Well the mismanagement in Altoona continues. The park at the curve is closed until the spring. Even if you are willing to hike up the steps to trackside you are locked out. For decades you could do just that, now after a few years under the Railroaders Museum, they have the whole thing shut down and closed for half a year. It is time the park is taken away from these people and made available to the public again. The park should be open and free to those who want to visit and climb the steps to trackside, period. The Railroaders Museum was entrusted with the park at Horseshoe Curve, one of the most top sites of railroading in the country, and ruined it for everyone.

Tom Gears

Forgotten Delaware
tom@forgottendelaware.com

I read in the paper last week that both the Railroaders Memorial Museum and the
Horseshoe Curve park are closed for the winter. However it was indicated that the they
wanted to keep the gate open at the Curve so visitors can walk up the steps. The principal
concern was liability if the Curve is unmanned and someone would slip or fall in the ice or
snow. I presume they are trying to address this issue.

Alan Maples

AMaples@aol.com

> I read in the paper last week that both the
> Railroaders Memorial Museum and the
> Horseshoe Curve park are closed for the
> winter. However it was indicated that the
> they
> wanted to keep the gate open at the Curve so
> visitors can walk up the steps. The
> principal
> concern was liability if the Curve is
> unmanned and someone would slip or fall in
> the ice or
> snow. I presume they are trying to address
> this issue.

> Alan Maples

Could it be that the problem is a legal one? In this day and age when people will not be responsible for thier own actions (stupid or not),one frivolous lawsuit can put a museum out of business. Also,don't forget the insurance people. The risks involved with an unsupervised site may have been more than the Museum's insurance company was willing to cover. One wonders how the Pennsy covered such eventualities in the "old days"


http://www.wcra.org
gferguson@aebc.com

> Could it be that the problem is a legal one?
> In this day and age when people will not be
> responsible for thier own actions (stupid or
> not),one frivolous lawsuit can put a museum
> out of business. Also,don't forget the
> insurance people. The risks involved with an
> unsupervised site may have been more than
> the Museum's insurance company was willing
> to cover. One wonders how the Pennsy covered
> such eventualities in the "old
> days"
.
Back then, people weren't "sue" happy and we didn't have a country overrun with sheister lawyers trying to fatten their wallets at someone else's expense.. (one man's opinion!)

gumworks@eaze.net

> .
> Back then, people weren't "sue"
> happy and we didn't have a country overrun
> with sheister lawyers trying to fatten their
> wallets at someone else's expense.. (one
> man's opinion!)

Okay, I'll put up with SOME lawyer-bashing, because the plaintiff's bar certainly deserves it. But:

1. The word is shyster, not sheister. If you're going to use an insult, at least spell it right!

2. It's always easy to blame the lawyers, but keep in mind that they'd go broke if the clients didn't already have the attitude that "someone else" must ALWAYS be responsible for their own stupidity.

3. One change in the law over the past half-century has compounded this increase in litigation, namely, the change from the older rule that ANY degree of contributory negligence would bar recovery (even if the claimant's negligence was only 1% of the total) to the system of comparative negligence (where a plaintiff who is 90% at fault can still collect 10%). Is the new system more fair? In some ways, yes, but not necessarily to the defendants, who might (in the example above) avoid paying for the claimant's own negligence, but still must bear the expense of defending the claim in the first place.

4. Over the same time period, many businesses have actively embraced the concept of "risk management," As distasteful as it might be, sometimes it is better in a business sense to pay an undeserving claimant $20,000--or even $200,000--than to bear the costs and risks of a trial. I've certainly settled cases where the claimant didn't deserve one damn dime--and found it quite distressing to do so--but it was the better choice from the client's viewpoint. Do such payments to undeserving claimants encourage more claims down the road? It's a topic of strong debate, and one not yet resolved.

5. Finally, I--and other members of the defense bar--would appreciate it if we aren't lumped in with the "greedy ambulance chasers" filing frivolous lawsuits. It's our job to defend our clients (in my own case, primarily Lloyd's insureds, railroads, aircraft operators and manufacturers, and even a railroad museum or two) against those claims, and to stomp on the more outrageous claims to whatever extent the law allows.

Kevinmccabe@avenew.com

I think it was Cicero who so aptly stated:
"The more law, the less justice."

Perhaps there's a corollary for some lawyers involved with RR preservation from what I've observed.
[No barb directed toward you, Kevin.]

> Okay, I'll put up with SOME lawyer-bashing,
> because the plaintiff's bar certainly
> deserves it. But:

> 1. The word is shyster, not sheister. If
> you're going to use an insult, at least
> spell it right!

> 2. It's always easy to blame the lawyers,
> but keep in mind that they'd go broke if the
> clients didn't already have the attitude
> that "someone else" must ALWAYS be
> responsible for their own stupidity.

> 3. One change in the law over the past
> half-century has compounded this increase in
> litigation, namely, the change from the
> older rule that ANY degree of contributory
> negligence would bar recovery (even if the
> claimant's negligence was only 1% of the
> total) to the system of comparative
> negligence (where a plaintiff who is 90% at
> fault can still collect 10%). Is the new
> system more fair? In some ways, yes, but not
> necessarily to the defendants, who might (in
> the example above) avoid paying for the
> claimant's own negligence, but still must
> bear the expense of defending the claim in
> the first place.

> 4. Over the same time period, many
> businesses have actively embraced the
> concept of "risk management," As
> distasteful as it might be, sometimes it is
> better in a business sense to pay an
> undeserving claimant $20,000--or even
> $200,000--than to bear the costs and risks
> of a trial. I've certainly settled cases
> where the claimant didn't deserve one damn
> dime--and found it quite distressing to do
> so--but it was the better choice from the
> client's viewpoint. Do such payments to
> undeserving claimants encourage more claims
> down the road? It's a topic of strong
> debate, and one not yet resolved.

> 5. Finally, I--and other members of the
> defense bar--would appreciate it if we
> aren't lumped in with the "greedy
> ambulance chasers" filing frivolous
> lawsuits. It's our job to defend our clients
> (in my own case, primarily Lloyd's insureds,
> railroads, aircraft operators and
> manufacturers, and even a railroad museum or
> two) against those claims, and to stomp on
> the more outrageous claims to whatever
> extent the law allows.
.
My but this IS a touchy subject apparantly! And I DID discover my mistake in spelling just as I hit the POST button; This isn't the place for any type of argument so I'll just say that there are bad eggs in ANY industry or profession and you are quite correct in pointing out frivolous lawsuits as a real problem. But those few who receive LARGE settlements for what would seem to otherwise be small infractions make the whole process appear to be ridiculous!! No intent here to bash you personally, since I don't know you, but like I said, it's only one man's opinion. Merry Christmas!!

> .
just hopping the fence? Been there, done that. I guess this one will start another flame-fest, huh? Anywho, lighten up gang, and have a Merry Christmas!

sirterp@myactv.net

There are public viewing spots in Cresson and Gallitzin; you've got the crossing at the Brickyard and at the footbridges in downtown Altoona.

The closure is the downside of institutionalising the Curve site, versus its previous status as a city park.


Electric City Trolley Museum Association

> There are public viewing spots in Cresson
> and Gallitzin; you've got the crossing at
> the Brickyard and at the footbridges in
> downtown Altoona.

> The closure is the downside of
> institutionalising the Curve site, versus
> its previous status as a city park.

I would hope everyone decrying the "injustice" in the court system cheerfully serves and performs their civil duty when asked to do so. I personally believe that the quality of members of the jury is as important to the final outcome of the trial as the lawyers that most people love to bash. Avoiding jury duty is like choosing not to vote......the lack of participation voids your right to complain. Just my perspective on the situation.
Don C.

old_fxrs@msn.com

If we would go back to England where most of this business started and copy one of their present procedures -- the loser of a court case pays all of the costs -- we would eliminate a lot of the frivolous cases!

frankr@nptc.com

That would indeed make a significant difference. I don't know what the law is concerning jury duty in states other than Tennessee, but here the law is pretty straightforward. Here you are required to answer a summons for jury duty by law. If you fail to appear, the county judge can issue a bench warrant for your arrest and compel you to appear for jury duty in that manner. Only once you have appeared before the judge will potential jurors be excused if they have personal situations that warrant that they be excused from jury duty, and work/employer requirements are not considered valid reasons for a juror to be excused except in certain individual cases.

awalker2002@comcast.net

> Okay, I'll put up with SOME lawyer-bashing,
> because the plaintiff's bar certainly
> deserves it. But:

>
Kevin, very valid points.

Hey guys lets not forget, as much as the new administrative state thinks its the sovereign-WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to be sovereign. What we need are some juries that don't get their jollies saying "yeah, I was on a jury that ordered a XX million dollar award". Of course that means the jury pool needs people bring some thoughtful sobriety to the process, instead of looking for a way to dodge it. What we have now is a seriously diminished jury pool, mostly consisting of those with phd's in jerry springer.

That said I'll add some more instruments of the liability crisis. The class action lawsuit, the demise of the demurrer and the failure of the judiciary to toss some of these plaintiffs out as vexatious litigants have contributed as well.



superheater@beer.com

> That would indeed make a significant
> difference. I don't know what the law is
> concerning jury duty in states other than
> Tennessee, but here the law is pretty
> straightforward. Here you are required to
> answer a summons for jury duty by law. If
> you fail to appear, the county judge can
> issue a bench warrant for your arrest and
> compel you to appear for jury duty in that
> manner. Only once you have appeared before
> the judge will potential jurors be excused
> if they have personal situations that
> warrant that they be excused from jury duty,
> and work/employer requirements are not
> considered valid reasons for a juror to be
> excused except in certain individual cases.

Sometimes that won't work either. My grandfather just got called for jury duty. He is 84, has terminal cancer and has extreme difficulty just getting to the bathroom 12 feet away from the bed. There is no way he can appear in court. So what is the sherriff going to do, haul him off to jail? Better bring an ambulance.

Ohio has a provision where you can send a letter requesting to be excused for jury duty, and if you send in that letter you don't have to appear unless your request is denied.


jrowlands@neo.rr.com

One problem with the jury system is the appauling low pay. I make $135 a day at my job, and on that I can survive. Ohio pays $25 a day for jury service. So if jury service lasts three weeks, I would make $375 versus the $2430 I would make working my job. So where do I get the $2,055 that I need for my bills? Is serving on a jury worth ruining my perfect credit rating for 7 years because of late payments? Is it worth going without?

Bring the pay for jury service up to something that is more than a token payment, or pass a law exempting jurors from having to pay their bills while serving on a jury.

This is a cold hard truth that keeps many people away from jury service.



jrowlands@neo.rr.com