In the annals of New York City public transit, the egregious law suits make the headlines. In February, for instance, the MTA came out on the wrong end of a case when a jury awarded $2.3 million to a man who lost a leg after falling onto the tracks with a BAC twice the legal limit. In April, a victim of a bus accident won over $27 million.
It seems that those cases — the ones that make the headlines — represent the tip of a large iceberg. Last year, the MTA spent around $57.6 million on personal injury claims. That total, which comes out of the agency’s operating budget, has increased by over $20 million since 2004, and the MTA wants to put an end to these injury claims. The Post’s Tom Namako has more on the suits:
The chronically cash-strapped MTA has become a money train for riders filing personal-injury lawsuits, forcing taxpayers to dole out tens of millions of dollars a year. The payouts come from the MTA’s day-to-day operating budget, which recently got a $1.6 billion bailout for 2009.
About 2,750 claims are filed every year, from people taking a simple spill while on MTA property to bone-headed buffoons who try — and fail — to outrun subway trains, said Martin Schnabel, NYC Transit’s chief lawyer.
“There are a small, but not insignificant, number of cases every year of people intentionally on the tracks coming into contact with trains,” Schnabel said.
Per Namako, the MTA Audit Committee has isolated this area of liability as a source of lost MTA revenue. According to a recent committee report, the MTA is currently facing 7800 lawsuits and receives around 3000 claims a year.
While juries tend to look favorably upon the MTA — 96 out of 150 jury decisions last year were in favor of the transit authority — agency lawyers would like to see Albany ban suits from those who “get themselves into dangerous situations.” In other words, if another Dustin Dibble is too drunk to stay on the platform, the MTA would prefer not to be liable for his injuries.
As an aspiring law student, transit advocate and tax- and fare-paying subway rider, I can certainly appreciate where the MTA is coming from on this issue. At a time when the agency is facing an extreme cash shortage and fares will soon be going up, they don’t want to be liable for the stupidity and irresponsibility of their riders.
The question centers around limiting liability. How can the MTA block these lawsuits from the get-go? Right now, if the MTA is not at fault, a jury would decide it so. The authority would still incur costs of litigation, and those mount up substantially over time. If Albany is serious about reining in MTA spending, tort reform would certainly be an interesting starting place. I don’t think our state legislature is spoiling for that fight though.
15 comments
Of course the MTA is gonna get sued a lot. The publicly announce that they can not even figure out when the edge of a platform needs to be repaired.
http://bkabak.wpengine.com/200.....orm-parts/
It goes much, much deeper than this article suggests. The MTA purchased an OCIP (owner controlled insurance program) policy for all of its capital construction to pay for various claims. The policy had an aggregate claim limit of $400 million. That entire amount has been exhausted. Now, I don’t know what the time period was, but that is a lot of money.
i don’t have the details of the testimony, so let me ask something that’s been on my mind: if it’s obvious that a drunk who falls onto the tracks under the influence of twice the limit has no-one but himself to blame, why did a jury award him damages?
Ben,
I actually know the lawyer who won the case for the guy who fell on the tracks, and while the plaintiff there was certainly partially responsible, he wasn’t entirely. The train operator saw him on the tracks and made a conscious decision to not stop the train. As you should know from your torts classes, these are fact based considerations and letting the MTA off without trials would just encourage their negligence, which we clearly do not need. Juries are there to decide these cases, maybe the MTA needs to fix the platforms and train their people better, which is the purpose of tort liability (along with compensation). I hardly think that an arbitrary cap on the MTA’s liability is either justified or even wise. Not every issue comes down to money, and not everything that costs the MTA money is bad for society, there are other concerns.
Maybe the MTA is paying people all these personal injury payouts because their stations and trains are responsible for personal injury. If they want to save money on proper maintenance, this is the cost.
If the tracks were consistently clean, the train operator would have seen Dustin Dibble on the tracks and stopped the train and there would not have been a payout. If the platform edges were in decent shape, they wouldn’t have to pay the people who fall onto the tracks when they break. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for this kind of negligence, I just wish I didn’t have to pay for it.
[…] Transportation Authority is ailing — and fed up with paying — after several personal injury claims cost the operation $57.6 million last year. [Second Ave. […]
i’m none the wiser.
“The train operator saw him on the tracks and made a conscious decision to not stop the train.”
“If the tracks were consistently clean, the train operator would have seen Dustin Dibble on the tracks and stopped the train…”
I read about the train operator’s testimony in the post, I think. He said, he saw the guy on the tracks, but wasn’t totally sure it was a person because the tracks are always so dirty, and proceeded.
I believe the train operator saw Dibble on the tracks but thought the body was garbage. So those two statements are consistent.
That’s correct. That’s why his is not really a representative case. I think Avif makes a good point above though: We can’t just allow the MTA to be negligent. That’s always the debate when it comes to tort reform.
right, thanks
Ben, aren’t you an actual law student, not just aspiring? Otherwise it’s kinda weird that you were at the law school all the time…
When it come to the guy who was drunk and fell onto the tracks, it was NOT about how he saw him and just didn’t want to stop. It was about how one guy (the train operator) saying that he saw a big piece of trash on the tracks but didn’t think it was a person until it was too late.
There whole case hung on the fact that a train opertor should stop the train when he sees any big object. Now I want anybody here to ride in the front of a train and tell me that they do not see any large lumps of trash, clohes, and other sorts of stuff on the tracks. I know transit can do a better ob at cleaning the tracks, but come on, there is no way a system like this can be totally free of any large debree
Even if you say it is partically transits fault, should it really been 60%+ thier fault? Does a guy who is driving at 30ph see the drunk guy jaywalking too late because he didn’t think it was a person until its too late 60+ percent at fault?
The MTA rep, and probably the rep of the workers is the reason why they lost the case, not because of the train operator not stopping for large objects on tracks.
As an attorney who deals with the TA (and someone who knows quite a few others)I can tell you that the TA goes out of its way to not settle resolvable matters, to not settle cases where they are clearly at fault and the cases can be settled for reasonable amounts (in light of the injuries suffered, of course). Instead, they take the posture that everything must be tried and therefore, leave themselves open to jury verdicts. Are some of these verdicts sometimes high? The system, of trial level reductions followed by appellate review will usually sort these out.
The TA would have you believe that they are not subject to the laws of the state. How about them following them and reducing their potential liabilty?
how long does it take to be awarded a settlement case. I have had one now for almost 2 years, how much longer do I wait? I had an operation. It was not my fault