17-year-old boys climb railroad cars

by Walter Olson on April 12, 2006

…and get in serious trouble with the 12,000-volt catenary wires atop them. Now a Pennsylvania federal judge has ruled that the resulting suit against Amtrak can go forward, including a claim for punitive damages — the doctrine of “attractive nuisance” applies, it seems, because the kids were after all legal infants. (Shannon P. Duffy, “17-Year-Old Trespassers May Use Attractive Nuisance Argument”, Legal Intelligencer, Apr. 11)(via Childs who got it from WSJ law blog).

Related posts

Tagged as: ,

{ 5 comments }

1 Supremacy Claus 04.11.06 at 10:49 pm

The victim committed a crime. Now, the court proposes to allow the rewarding of a crime with a money settlement.

2 Deoxy 04.12.06 at 3:35 pm

When the crime is trespassing, vandalism, or especially both, that’s pretty much par for the course. Same thing happens with people on rail lines and boys falling through school skylights.

Of course, that doesn’t make it RIGHT, just common.

3 MF 04.12.06 at 6:39 pm

“the kids were after all legal infants…” I think you misspelled ‘idiots’. :-)

Any jury that finds that 17 year olds shouldn’t be expected to know that this was a dangerous and stupid thing to do should be found in contempt of court. Or something like that.

This is all about the typical failure to take personal responsibility, one of the biggest problems in today’s society. Why can’t someone ever just say, “I messed up, and now I’m paying the price”? No, it always has to be someone else’s fault.

4 Jim Collins 04.13.06 at 8:29 am

Legal infants? A person can be given a life sentence at age 14 or younger. How does the term “legal infant” apply? is there a difference between criminal and civil matters?

5 Sally 04.13.06 at 2:54 pm

How are these children (almost adults) supposed to learn to take responsibility for their own safety if they are rewarded for doing dangerous things like this?

Comments on this entry are closed.