Cheap and Portable Evidence

As we all know, public transportation is a fiercely competitive business, even in operating environments which are subsidized. But the failure to make tiny investments in safety can be costly in the courtroom.

Mill Wise and Gram Foolish

Enriching the Piper

When a transportation operator kills or maims a passenger because a few dollars were saved in service or equipment, arguments about the competitive nature of the business generally fall upon deaf ears. When a passenger suffers because the operator actually spent more than was needed, but on a frill, even more severe verdicts or settlements may ensue:

In a society with no universal healthcare, little accountability, marginal recourse, and income disparities which often transform injuries into an extended family's complete ruin, victims and their attorneys have little practical choice but to chase the rainbows suddenly available to them when an injury or fatality occurs.

Saucers and Sorcery

When a jury of one's peers is asked to assess transportation safety, the defendant's plate better not be missing a handful of magic beans. The general principle in transportation liability is that, within reason, safety should not be party to a trade-off for performance, durability, maneuverability, versatility, fuel efficiency or any other criteria by which vehicles and service are often evaluated. Safety better not appear as a trade-off for marginal, much less trivial, cost savings. And God help the defendant found trading safety for comfort or style.

In a society where the judicial system represents the last bastion of hope for most individuals using public transportation, one can expect the scales of justice to balance, if not tip, when opportunities arise to weigh the evidence. When the key evidence can be carried into court with one hand, or cost less than a single juror is being paid for his or her time in court, one should not be surprised when the other hand is filled with gold.