The AFU and Urban Legend Archive Death peeing on third rail Select a topic - - - - - - - - Home Searches AFU FAQ - - - - - - - - AFU Animals Books Celebrities Classic Collegiate Death Disney Drugs Food GIF Language Legal Medical Misc Movies Politics Products Religion Science Sex Songs TV - - - - - - - - Other sites

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
From: Becca Ward <talorina@deathstar.org>
Subject: Re: I peed on the third rail
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:59:43 -0500

On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, H.W.M. wrote:

> SOCCERNUMB wrote:
> > > There was a legitimate case in Chicago a few years ago in which the
> > >city was sued for a drunk Chinese man doing just this, because
>warning signs
> > >to avoid the area were not printed in Mandarin.
>
> That is why there are so many intelligent Chinese, the stupid ones
> piss on the rails. if the city removed the warning signs in English, I
> bet the IQ level would rise.
> Was the fellow cited for a darwin award?

Before this discussion goes much further, potential participants might want to check out the actual honest-to-God factual background of the case in question. The decision of the Illinois Supreme Court is available at _Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority,_ 152 Ill.2d 432, 605 N.E.2d 493 (1992). In that decision, the state Supreme Court *affirmed* a verdict in favor of the decedent's estate; the eventual award was $1.5 million plus $300,000 in accrued post-judgment interest. A couple of things should be pointed out at the beginning: The decedent was not killed because he urinated on the third rail. He crossed onto the property, *presumably* to urinate, and came into physical contact with the third rail. Furthermore, the jury found that the decedent was contributorily negligent, and found the CTA liable for only 50% of the plaintiff's damages.

Short account from the court opinion:

Plaintiff's decedent, Sang Yeul Lee (lee), a 46-year-old Korean immigrant who was unable to read English, attended a party on the evening of October 21, 1977. On his way home, Lee entered a CTA right-of-way at the intersection of Kedzie Avenue and the Ravenswood railway line in Chicago, apparently in order to urinate. The right-of-way was posted with signs, placed on a utility shed and on sawhorses at each side of the tracks, warning "Danger," "Keep Out," and "Electric Current." Parallel to the tracks and approximately 6-1/2 feet from the sidewalk lay a street-level third rail. The purpose of the rail, which carried 600 volts of electricity, was to supply power to trains as they passed through the street-level crossing. The CTA had laid uneven-edge boards, about six inches apart, called "jaws" on its right-of-way next to the sidewalk in order to make pedestrians aware that they were not meant to walk in that area. The uneven surface of the boards, also known as "cattle boards,"[1] makes it impossible for cattle and difficult for persons to walk atop them. The "jaws" at Kedzie Avenue extended between the end of the third rail and the sidewalk and were also placed on either side of the rail and between the tracks. Lee, whose blood-alcohol level of 0.341 placed him in the "stupor" classification of intoxication[2], made contact with the third rail and suffered fatal injuries. . . .

. . . Plaintiff introduced evidence of 10 prior accidents which occurred between 1948 and 1975 on the 3.2 mile segment of track where the CTA's third rail runs at grade level. . . The CTA offered to stipulate that it had notice of the accidents on that section of its line prior to 1977...

... [P]laintiff's expert witness testified that the segment of track in question is the only one in the United States or Canada where an electrically charged grade-level third rail is unguarded, uncovered or unfenced. ...

... The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff [of $3 million] which was proportionately reduced [to $1.5 million] to reflect decedent's own negligence. . . .

[end quote]

The Illinois Supreme Court's decision affirming the jury verdict (which had been reversed by the intermediate Illinois Appellate Court) is premised upon painfully dull and not at all innovative principles of negligence law.[3] The factors considered important by the Court: (1) The CTA had created an artificial (i.e., not something just happening by force of nature) and hazardous condition on the land; it was on notice that pedestrians frequently passed over this intersection; the third rail itself was not marked and it was not constructed in such a way that someone would be able to look at it and recognize it for what it was; the warning signs were not posted in such a way, and in such a location, as to draw anyone's attention to the source of danger.

For those who want a relatively succinct account of how the _Lee_ case was used (after appropriate distortion of the underlying facts) to rally support for tort reform in Illinois, please see: Stephanie B. Goldberg, "Tough Times for Victims? Tort Reform Is Supposed to End Outrageous Lawsuits, But Its Impact May Be Far Greater Than That," Chicago _TRIBUNE,_ July 30, 1995 (Sunday Magazine).

And a preview of next week's all-new episode: "Have you heard about the woman who's suing the makers of Viagra because her newly-randy husband left her?"

Becca Ward

[1] Hi, Don!

[2] I assume the authorities did not ask Mr. Lee to consent to a portable Breathalyzer test after his body was found.

[3] Unless someone feels up to making an impassioned argument about why Section 337 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts is a radical departure from well-established law. In some other newsgroup, please.