# Woman Sues RR for Injuries While Taking Pictures



## MrFSS (Nov 19, 2009)

JACKSON, Miss. -- Helen Gable was taking pictures on the railroad tracks in Tupelo in 2006 when a train nearly cut off her leg as she tried to get out of the way.

Gable and her husband are suing the railroad company for nearly $6 million.

*Full Story*


----------



## AAARGH! (Nov 19, 2009)

MrFSS said:


> JACKSON, Miss. -- Helen Gable was taking pictures on the railroad tracks in Tupelo in 2006 when a train nearly cut off her leg as she tried to get out of the way.
> Gable and her husband are suing the railroad company for nearly $6 million.
> 
> *Full Story*


I bet she also drives around lowered crossing gates too.

There is nothing more unfortunate than a living stupid person except a dead one because of said stupidity.

Throw this one out as frivalous!


----------



## MrEd (Nov 19, 2009)

Her claim that the train was speeding is interesting.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Nov 19, 2009)

Gee, do you think she has a case?



> ...but "she admits in her lawsuit filing that she was trespassing" to take photos on the track.


----------



## Neil_M (Nov 19, 2009)

So she sues, do the train's crew and any emergency services staff that turned up sue her as well?!


----------



## AAARGH! (Nov 19, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> So she sues, do the train's crew and any emergency services staff that turned up sue her as well?!


And all the residents of the community that didn't have those emergency responders... :blink: It goes on...


----------



## the_traveler (Nov 19, 2009)

> Gable says the company should have posted trespassing signs to keep people away.





> but "she admits in her lawsuit filing that she was trespassing" to take photos on the track.


I just wonder how she knew she was trespassing if there were no signs to keep people away? :huh:


----------



## jis (Nov 19, 2009)

the_traveler said:


> > Gable says the company should have posted trespassing signs to keep people away.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A momentary chance lapse of the non-operating state of the brain?  :lol:


----------



## DET63 (Nov 19, 2009)

> JACKSON, Miss. -- Helen Gable was taking pictures on the railroad tracks in Tupelo in 2006 when a train nearly cut off her leg as she tried to get out of the way.





PetalumaLoco said:


> Gee, do you think she has a case?
> 
> 
> > ...but "she admits in her lawsuit filing that she was trespassing" to take photos on the track.


I don't think she has a leg to stand on.


----------



## DET63 (Nov 19, 2009)

Another side to the story?



> AP Writes Horrible Description of Helen Gable's Lawsuit Against Railroad
> 
> On Tuesday the Clarion-Ledger website posted this AP story about the lawsuit filed in Tupelo by a woman who was struck by a train. Here is a quote of the entire article:
> 
> ...


Six feet from the tracks is not six feet from the train, since the train is always wider than the tracks.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Nov 19, 2009)

Her husband is also suing for $750k, for loss of sexual relations. Man, that's a lot of whoring around!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 19, 2009)

PetalumaLoco said:


> Her husband is also suing for $750k, for loss of sexual relations. Man, that's a lot of whoring around!


Whered he meet her, in Paris or Washington, thats some pricey companionship, wonder if Elliot Spitzer knew her? :lol:


----------



## tp49 (Nov 20, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> > Her husband is also suing for $750k, for loss of sexual relations. Man, that's a lot of whoring around!
> ...


Don't know what gave me more of a laugh the Spitzer comment or reading the complaint. Probably have to make it Spitzer 1, complaint 1a.


----------



## MattW (Nov 20, 2009)

Wow, the complaint should be part of a stand up routine. Especially this part:



> Plaintiff was free of injuries before the aforesaid accident, *and free of any contributory negligence that proximately caused her injuries.*


Um, standing on someone else's property where 6000 tons trains come through is free of negligence? Based on that one little line, I hope BNSF turns around and sues them for damage to the train, possibly the roadbed, loss of revenue caused by the train being delayed etc.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Nov 20, 2009)

This probably has something to do with her decision to sue: Train Accident Lawyers Alert

Damn bottom feeders...


----------



## Ryan (Nov 20, 2009)

DET63 said:


> > JACKSON, Miss. -- Helen Gable was taking pictures on the railroad tracks in Tupelo in 2006 when a train nearly cut off her leg as she tried to get out of the way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's wrong.

But oh, so funny!


----------



## George Harris (Nov 20, 2009)

PetalumaLoco said:


> This probably has something to do with her decision to sue: Train Accident Lawyers AlertDamn bottom feeders...


Did you notice that the article was about the car being hit in South Carolina, but hte picture with the article was of a train on the Northeast Corridor?

Anybody standing within 6 feet of a passing freight train need not worry about brain injury because they do not have a functional brain.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 20, 2009)

I did, pretty lame (but what do you expect from a bunch of bottom feeders).

I also just noticed that the incident took place in 2006 - talk about a delayed reaction.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Nov 20, 2009)

so she waited 3 years before suing?


----------



## Neil_M (Nov 20, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> so she waited 3 years before suing?


Took her that long to hop to the lawyers office.............


----------



## MrFSS (Nov 20, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > so she waited 3 years before suing?
> ...


Probably took her that long to find an attorney who would take the case. Statute of limitations must be three years and they filed right before it was to expire.


----------



## tp49 (Nov 20, 2009)

MrFSS said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > amtrakwolverine said:
> ...


Most likely.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 20, 2009)

MrFSS said:


> Probably took her that long to find an attorney who would take the case. Statute of limitations must be three years and they filed right before it was to expire.


That's standard procedure. You do that because it creates the coldest evidence trail possible and makes it easier for you to load the system with evidence that you have and have been keeping that points to your favour, whilst the railroad has likely forgot all about it ever happening.

As for this, most ridiculous law suits have some basis that makes sense in some direction or other. The favourite ridiculous lawsuit is that McDonalds suit about spilled coffee, a law suit that had a lot more grounds for the suit then most. It was a very solid case, with a lot of reckless endangerment on the part of McDonalds. To sum it up, MickeyDs had been serving coffee on average some 30-40° hotter then anyone else for a variety of reasons. They had received notice of injury and problem out the wazoo on their coffee being too hot- some 260 complaints if I remember correctly.

If the woman had spilled coffee on her self and crashed the car- she didn't - MickeyD's woulda been off the hook. But that wasn't what happened. The woman spilled it- in a parking lot - and got third degree burns. Her driving with coffee in her lap was negligent, and nobody, not even that plaintiff, denied that. HOWEVER, MickeyD's contributory negligence because of the coffee temperature issue, the sheer number of serious complaints about the issue, regulatory advisories about the issue, and the fact that the injury was purely and solely caused by that coffee being too hot (normally, coffee being spilled on the lap is a YOWCH! not a third degree burn- the event was the plaintiffs fault, the injury the coffee's) meant that the burden of MickeyD's contributory negligence completely obliterated the plaintiffs on negligence.


----------



## DET63 (Nov 23, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > Probably took her that long to find an attorney who would take the case. Statute of limitations must be three years and they filed right before it was to expire.
> ...


I don't think this case will be comparable, unless the cable hanging off the train ends up coming into play.


----------



## GoldenSpike (Nov 23, 2009)

> There is nothing more unfortunate than a living stupid person except a dead one because of said stupidity.


AKA as trying really hard to be a *DRT* (Dead Right There) candidate for the annual Darwin Awards.

Named in honor of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, the Darwin Awards commemorate *those who improve our gene pool by removing themselves from i**t**. * :blink:

http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2009-07.html


----------



## tp49 (Nov 23, 2009)

DET63 said:


> I don't think this case will be comparable, unless the cable hanging off the train ends up coming into play.


You mean the "alleged" hanging cable.


----------

