kakomu wrote:
but that the railroad area somehow ensnared her foot (there seems to be no elaboration on how it did). If that\'s the case, the rail yard posed an unnecessary risk.
That\'s probably not the case. The article said her foot became entangled in rock, most likely the ballast that the track is laid on.
The rail yard poses an open and obvious risk. Not to mention, despite being private property, it\'s highly accessible.
Same can be said for streets and highways, except for the private property part, but that doesn\'t mean the DOT is responsible for damage caused by anyone participating in illegal activity on those streets and highways.
Are we going to start blaming other photographers that are hurt in hazardous areas because they shouldn\'t have been there in the first place (be it Afghanistan, out in the Woods, in the mountains, etc)?
Not blaming them but holding them responsible for their actions. Unless of course someone goes to Afghanistan and tries to sue someone because people shooting guns over there. Then I would definitely blame them for being irresponsible by not thinking about what they are doing and then cluttering up the court system with frivolous lawsuits .
Part of her complaint is that the rail road should have no trespassing signs in place. They do. There are 233,000 miles of tracks in the US. There is no way to post and maintain signs in a way where you will never be out of eyesight of a sign.
The RR\'s spend millions of dollars on safety for their employees and the public but there is only so much they can do in a case like this. They can not make the system idiot proof, only idiot resistant.
Suing someone else for one\'s own irresponsibility is not right. In this case I think the rail road should press charges against the photographer and the court should bring charges against her for endangering her niece.
Marty
Nov 18, 2009 at 03:41 PM
Previous versions of Marty Bingham's message #7791660 « Railroad Tracks and Photography »
