Free Newsletters
Most Popular
- Top 10 U.S. Insurers in Tornado-Stricken States: SNL Financial
- Atlantic Coast Can Expect 3 to 6 Major Hurricanes This Season: NOAA
- Brown & Brown to Acquire Insurance Broker Beecher Carlson
- AIG Sues Ex-U.Va. Lax Player Over Insurance Claim
- Wage and Hour Claims Among Top Threats to U.S. Employers
- Wage and Hour Claims Among Top Threats to U.S. Employers
- Cyber Attacks On Banks More Serious Than Public Realizes
- Montana Man Deliberately Crashes Into Insurance Office
- 50 Top Apps for Independent Agents
- Top 10 U.S. Insurers in Tornado-Stricken States: SNL Financial
- GOP Questions Fundraising for ObamacareMay 21, 2013 | Comments (151)
- Employer Contraception Mandate Headed to Court for Ban RulingMay 22, 2013 | Comments (85)
- Wage and Hour Claims Among Top Threats to U.S. EmployersMay 21, 2013 | Comments (15)
- Tennessee City Debates Red Light CamerasMay 21, 2013 | Comments (6)
- Cyber Attacks On Banks More Serious Than Public RealizesMay 20, 2013 | Comments (6)
Current Issue
Partner Center
Editors and Contributors
-
Andrea WellsAgency Compensation Playbook: 2013 Agency Salary Survey -
Andrew G. SimpsonHow Process Improvement Drives Agency Profitability -
Stephanie JonesThe Acquisition Cycle -
Don JerglerIndustry Predictions -
Chris BurandReasonable Compensation -
Andrea WellsPersonal Lines: How Technology is Changing the Way Agents Do Business
Quote of Note
The Executive is not convinced that there is currently a persuasive argument to support the need for insurance for firearms in the home.
More QuotesChester McPherson, deputy commissioner of the D.C. Department of Insurance

Oklahoma Schools Destroyed by Tornado Lacked ‘Safe Rooms’
Connecticut Court Rules That Lawyers Can’t Be Sued for Fraud
Wage and Hour Claims Among Top Threats to U.S. Employers
Cyber Attacks On Banks More Serious Than Public Realizes
E&O Insights: Restaurant and Tavern Risks
CEA’s First CIO Reflects C-Suite Trend
Golf and Country Clubs Weather the Storm
Midwest AGs Go After Storm-Chasing Roofing Companies



having been familiar with this process because i used to driver OTR… similar as far as it takes time to slow a vehicle down whether truck or rail. if drunk, he had know clue as to how he ended up in the track much less how he gotten there. he could have been bumped or he bumped off a person or column. i don’t see how they could make the motorman primary responsible for a drunk’s actions. it be like a drunk driver who moved in front of me and cut me off and i crashed into him because there was no room to react. again, we don’t know how much details about the distances…
It is about time a reasonable decision has come down even though this one is a no-brainer.
Somebody has to pay for the individual being irresponsible. Since the guy is not independently wealthy (making that assumption)then the City must pay for his own stupid ignorance. Since the “victim” was drunk, he should also sue the bar he was drinking at, the bartender and waitress or waiters for serving him, the rail manufacturer for allowing him to rest on it, the auto manufacture for allowing him to drive his car or the taxi company who picked him up at the bar and drove him, the shoe manufacturer for allowing him to walk while he was drunk, his mother and father for raising an irresponsible individual. Someone else should pay!
The jury’s original verdict and award is symtomatic of how deficient our legal system is. Their rationale (or lack thereof) that the train operator was primarily negligent and liable smacks of complete ignorance of the comparative negligence statute that is supposed to apply (in theory)in NY. It is reflective of the give-a-way mentality of too many New Yorkers who can smell a buck a mile away.
When someone makes a decision to drink too much thereby losing control of their senses and abilities to protect themselves from harm, they are primarily responsible. Anyone who’s been in a subway station knows the visibility on the tracks is extremely limited. On approach to a stop, the engineer has more to lookout for than some drunk laying on the tracks. He’s more concerned (and rightfully so) about the safety of the sober people on the platform. His negligence, if any, should be minimal.
It’s time to have professional jurors who are well educated, well-paid, and have the ability to objectively evaluate relevant evidence. Japan has such a system.
did they convict the drunk for drinking in public? or anything of that sort? or how did they know he was drunk?
In the article the guy admitted he was too drunk to know how he got there. Guess he wasn’t sane enough when he testified under oath.
All the more reason to lobby for Stupidity Exclusions:
AMENDMENT — STUPIDITY EXCLUSION
THIS ENDORSEMENT MODIFIES INSURANCE PROVIDED UNDER THE FOLLOWING:
It is hereby agreed that form ____ B. Exclusions is amended to include as follows:
r. “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage” arising from a “Loss” caused by an “act” deemed “stupid” or “asinine” by any reasonable and prudent person. Ignorance of your “stupid” or “asinine” actions shall not be deemed payable under any clause of this contract.
well, we could say that he had found a place to sleep like any homeless fella, but decided it was a bit warmer or sounded better w/his head against the rail… luckily it was not the third rail… that would have been a shockful experience.
so i wonder where he’s sleeping now?