A jury recently awarded a man who was hit by a New York City train $2.3 million dollars. The man, who reportedly had to have part of his leg amputated as a result of the incident, was intoxicated at the time he was hit. Allegedly, in a liquored-up daze, he wandered onto the train tracks. However, the jury disregarded the plaintiff's culpability for his drunken romp on the train tracks; reasoning that the train conductor had ample time to stop the train in order to avoid hitting the inebriated commuter.How fair do you think this verdict is in light of the commuter's actions?
[SIDEBAR: Isn't public drunkenness illegal? If so, what does that say about the verdict? Can a court reward a person who is engaged in an illegal activity?]
No comments:
Post a Comment