Here we go again, one more example of how courts and juries seem to believe that individuals should not be responsible for their own actions.
As reported in this story (on CNN), “Dustin Dibble, 25, landed in the [New York City] subway tracks after a late night watching a hockey game at a bar with friends April 23, 2006. A downtown N train ran over him, severing his right leg.”. Yep, he was drunk, more than twice the legal limit had he been driving. And he mistakenly stumbled onto the train tracks.
He’s lucky to be alive. But, no, that’s not good enough. He sued the Metropolitan Transport Authority. And he won! “The jury ruled Tuesday that Dibble was 35 percent responsible for the accident, so his monetary compensation was also reduced by 35 percent — from $3,594,943 to $2,336,713.”
35% responsible?!? He drank, and did so by choice! He impaired his own judgment, and then tempted natural selection. Had he have been killed he’d have been a nominee for The Darwin Awards.
So, how did the jury reach such a ridiculous decision? The only explanation I can find is that perhaps they truly were a jury of his peers, people as stupid as Dustin himself.