Well, regardless of whether or not the guy was drunk, the driver still showed negligence by not trying to stop the train. And it was a civil case, so the burden of proof is a lot less than if he faced criminal charges (which it doesn't sound like he did).
Drunk driving is different, because in that case the drunk person is the one driving a vehicle that is capable of killing someone. Plus, it's illegal, where as walking while drunk is not. If a drunk driver hits a drunk pedestrian, then he would not only be charged, but he would also most likely be successfully sued by the pedestrian in civil court. In fact, didn't something like that happen a couple years ago in State College? Except, instead of losing a leg, the guy is now pretty much a vegetable.
The moral of the story is that being an idiot doesn't mean people can kill or injure you. Legally, anyway. I don't know how Charles Darwin would feel about this case.
See, I take a Darwinian approach. I also think our culture is too leniant on drinking. Sure, drunk driving we all crack down on, but public drunkenness is no big deal.
Comments 2
Drunk driving is different, because in that case the drunk person is the one driving a vehicle that is capable of killing someone. Plus, it's illegal, where as walking while drunk is not. If a drunk driver hits a drunk pedestrian, then he would not only be charged, but he would also most likely be successfully sued by the pedestrian in civil court. In fact, didn't something like that happen a couple years ago in State College? Except, instead of losing a leg, the guy is now pretty much a vegetable.
The moral of the story is that being an idiot doesn't mean people can kill or injure you. Legally, anyway. I don't know how Charles Darwin would feel about this case.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment