Settlement Requires Judge to Pull Rulings from Westlaw, Lexis

Bill
Aug 21, 2009 5:57 AM CST

“The teenage plaintiffs in the case had been awarded $24 million in damages for burns suffered after they climbed on top of a parked Amtrak train.”

Ye gods, what’s wrong with this picture?  Engage in knowing, wilfull and reckless trespass, and then win the lottery when your own stupid and illegal actions get you hurt?

Someone notify the Stella Awards.

Flag this comment

B. McLeod
Aug 21, 2009 7:15 AM CST

Yes, I’ve always been partial to those too.  Oh, did you say “torts”?  Well, never mind then.

Concerning the type of “attractive nuisance” actually discussed in the story, the railroads have historically been a great big target.  Back when I was in school, the illustrative case on the doctrine was a railroad turntable case.

Flag this comment

Dan
Aug 21, 2009 8:33 AM CST

If the parties did not want decisions on the record, they should have settled before the decisions were made, not afterward.  Or, they could have pursued alternative dispute resolution.  I find it disturbing that a court would, in a noncontractual case, vacate its orders not because they were contrary to law or justice, but simply because the parties agree to have the court do so.  Furthermore, apparently, this isn’t even a matter for the court’s discretion—it was required to do so!  Maybe someone can explain what the legal or policy basis for such a requirement would be and how it overrides the public’s interest in seeing that the courts are dispensing justice appropriately.

Flag this comment

taikan
Aug 21, 2009 10:18 AM CST

Whether there is a “very valid reason” for the attractive nuisance doctrine is open to debate, as illustrated by the fact that there are other countries in which the doctrine does not exist.

The more disturbing aspect of this case is that Westlaw agreed to erase reported decisions simply because the parties wanted it done and got the judge to ask for it on their behalf.  Assuming the settlement rendered the prior decisions moot, that fact can be noted in the reporters.  In any event, if these decisions were actually published as the article indicates, lawyers who do their research the “old fashioned way” using books still will be able to find these decisions.

Flag this comment

R
Aug 21, 2009 11:05 AM CST

I thought that orders of the court only applied to parties how can a court ever order unrelated third parties to act. WHere is lexis and westlaws claims that due process was violated as they were not invovled with this litiagation. What about the other services? are they able to publish these opinions or are they banned as well? this is why attorneys have such a low opinion from that other ABA article. People who do not knowan attorney and have never retained one are seeing ruling like this and bad shoes. See http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2009/06/27/a1b_bino_0628.html and the follow up http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2009/07/04/a1b_binocol_0705.html?cxntlid=inform_artr

Flag this comment

B. McLeod
Aug 21, 2009 11:59 PM CST

Of course, turntables still exist and still are used, although most of them aren’t looking too good these days.

As a nation, we have really let our passenger rail go horribly wrong.  If you’ve ridden in Europe and ridden here, I need say no more.  It’s almost unbearably shameful.  For those who haven’t been on Amtrak, I strongly suggest you research the remaining opportunities, and take advantage of some of them, before it completely fades into history.

Flag this comment

B. McLeod
Aug 23, 2009 11:53 PM CST

Geoff, I dinna think it greatly wise to urge the “Three Boys” doctrine before an appellate panel.

Flag this comment