If your cell phone falls in the toilet, what you gonna do

"Phil Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> If they sue him, he will counter sue for failure to maintain a safe
> environment for the passenger, or maintaining a defective toilet or
> some such claim, valid or otherwise.

It seems like a serious design flaw if it's so easy to get trapped by
a toilet in such a way that the jaws of life are required to get free.
How exactly did the man's arm get trapped?

-Apr

---

› See More: If your cell phone falls in the toilet, what you gonna do

On 2 Nov 2003 11:49:52 -0800, Allston Parking Refugee wrote:

>> If they sue him, he will counter sue for failure to maintain a safe
>> environment for the passenger, or maintaining a defective toilet or
>> some such claim, valid or otherwise.
>
>It seems like a serious design flaw if it's so easy to get trapped by
>a toilet in such a way that the jaws of life are required to get free.

Expect to see signs posted "Do Not Insert Arm In Toilet" from now
on.

> How exactly did the man's arm get trapped?

He put it in a place where it didn't belong..... <ggg>

--
===> Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please <===

Phil Kane -- Beaverton, Oregon
PNW Milepost 754 -- Tillamook District

mrtravel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Brian Wickham wrote:
>> All quite beside the point. Doesn't everyone know by now that if you
>> dowse a cell phone it is irrevocably killed?
>
> I wouldn't be too sure of that. Many electronic devices come back to
> life when they dry out.

Sure, if they were not powered on at the time of dousing. If power was
applied (as was probably the case with the guy dropping it in the middle of
a conversation) then short circuits can occur that bypass normal protection
mechanisms.

Not to mention the solvent in the flush liquid, if it is an airplane-style
toilet.

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

Peter Fox <[email protected]> wrote:
> But why could not the train continue its journey while this was going on?

His watch got caught on a track switch and rerouted the train to Poughkeepsie.

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

> Well it seems Metro-North is going to go after the man to pony up. See:
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/01/ny...354000&en=98e6
658dcb73ecc9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

If they do that, why not excess people over here who don't pay for a ticket
to cover the costs the Train Company has to pay for delayed trains when they
get the police to escort the man/woman off the train.
--
To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline
For Train Information, The Latest News & Best photos around check out the
Award Winning Railways
Online at http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 21:02:10 -0000, "Joe" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>If they do that, why not excess people over here who don't pay for a ticket
>to cover the costs the Train Company has to pay for delayed trains when they
>get the police to escort the man/woman off the train.

Wouldn't that be a Penalty Fare?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
[email protected] is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null.
Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me.

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 21:02:10 -0000, "Joe" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> Well it seems Metro-North is going to go after the man to pony up. See:
>>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/01/ny...354000&en=98e6
>658dcb73ecc9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
>
>If they do that, why not excess people over here who don't pay for a ticket
>to cover the costs the Train Company has to pay for delayed trains when they
>get the police to escort the man/woman off the train.

Do you mean assess? At any rate, once the person is taken into
custody, it's up to the courts to decide what, if any, restitution
(s)he has to pay for the crimes committed. That's not something a
transit system can invoke in a rule.

There are rules covering conduct on all (NYS) MTA systems that carry
the force of law, but those have received legislative approval which
is necessary for a NYS-sworn peace officer to be able to enforce them.

1CELL.html?ex=1068354000&en=98e6
>>658dcb73ecc9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
>>
>>If they do that, why not excess people over here who don't pay for a ticket
>>to cover the costs the Train Company has to pay for delayed trains when they
>>get the police to escort the man/woman off the train.
>
>
> Do you mean assess? At any rate, once the person is taken into
> custody, it's up to the courts to decide what, if any, restitution
> (s)he has to pay for the crimes committed. That's not something a
> transit system can invoke in a rule.

Not correct. They can still sue for damages. What satisfies the criminal
court might not be adequate in civil court.

mrtravel wrote:
>
> 1CELL.html?ex=1068354000&en=98e6
> >>658dcb73ecc9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
> >>
> >>If they do that, why not excess people over here who don't pay for a ticket
> >>to cover the costs the Train Company has to pay for delayed trains when they
> >>get the police to escort the man/woman off the train.
> >
> >
> > Do you mean assess? At any rate, once the person is taken into
> > custody, it's up to the courts to decide what, if any, restitution
> > (s)he has to pay for the crimes committed. That's not something a
> > transit system can invoke in a rule.
>
> Not correct. They can still sue for damages. What satisfies the criminal
> court might not be adequate in civil court.

That's backward. Civil standards are more lenient than criminal; and you
don't have a Constitutional right to an attorney in a civil matter.
--
Peter T. Daniels [email protected]

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> mrtravel wrote:
>
>>1CELL.html?ex=1068354000&en=98e6
>>
>>>>658dcb73ecc9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
>>>>
>>>>If they do that, why not excess people over here who don't pay for a ticket
>>>>to cover the costs the Train Company has to pay for delayed trains when they
>>>>get the police to escort the man/woman off the train.
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you mean assess? At any rate, once the person is taken into
>>>custody, it's up to the courts to decide what, if any, restitution
>>>(s)he has to pay for the crimes committed. That's not something a
>>>transit system can invoke in a rule.
>>
>>Not correct. They can still sue for damages. What satisfies the criminal
>>court might not be adequate in civil court.
>
>
> That's backward. Civil standards are more lenient than criminal; and you
> don't have a Constitutional right to an attorney in a civil matter.

The point is that the penalties in the criminal matter don't prevent the
damaged party from suing.

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 00:08:25 GMT, mrtravel <[email protected]> wrote:

>1CELL.html?ex=1068354000&en=98e6
>>>658dcb73ecc9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
>>>
>>>If they do that, why not excess people over here who don't pay for a ticket
>>>to cover the costs the Train Company has to pay for delayed trains when they
>>>get the police to escort the man/woman off the train.
>>
>>
>> Do you mean assess? At any rate, once the person is taken into
>> custody, it's up to the courts to decide what, if any, restitution
>> (s)he has to pay for the crimes committed. That's not something a
>> transit system can invoke in a rule.
>
>Not correct. They can still sue for damages. What satisfies the criminal
>court might not be adequate in civil court.

Re-read what I wrote. I said it's up to the courts to decide what
restitution she has to pay. Granted, if it's in a civil court, we're
not talking an actual crime anymore.

And as Peter pointed out, the reason such things are settled in
criminal court over civil is the standards of proof are traditionally
lower in a civil proceeding.

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 00:29:28 GMT, mrtravel <[email protected]> wrote:

>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> mrtravel wrote:
>>
>>>1CELL.html?ex=1068354000&en=98e6
>>>
>>>>>658dcb73ecc9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
>>>>>
>>>>>If they do that, why not excess people over here who don't pay for a ticket
>>>>>to cover the costs the Train Company has to pay for delayed trains when they
>>>>>get the police to escort the man/woman off the train.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you mean assess? At any rate, once the person is taken into
>>>>custody, it's up to the courts to decide what, if any, restitution
>>>>(s)he has to pay for the crimes committed. That's not something a
>>>>transit system can invoke in a rule.
>>>
>>>Not correct. They can still sue for damages. What satisfies the criminal
>>>court might not be adequate in civil court.
>>
>>
>> That's backward. Civil standards are more lenient than criminal; and you
>> don't have a Constitutional right to an attorney in a civil matter.
>
>The point is that the penalties in the criminal matter don't prevent the
> damaged party from suing.

This is true, but it's very rare that someone will seek civil
penalties if the event in question is also covered by criminal
penalties and there's a decent chance the charges will stand up. Why?
Because you can still collect fines in a criminal proceeding as well
as win criminal charges.

In <[email protected]> Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> writes:

>And as Peter pointed out, the reason such things are settled in
>criminal court over civil is the standards of proof are traditionally
>lower in a civil proceeding.

Please, let's keep OJ Simpson out of here.

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
[email protected]
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

Cyrus Afzali wrote:


> Re-read what I wrote. I said it's up to the courts to decide what
> restitution she has to pay. Granted, if it's in a civil court, we're
> not talking an actual crime anymore.
>
> And as Peter pointed out, the reason such things are settled in
> criminal court over civil is the standards of proof are traditionally
> lower in a civil proceeding.

Yes, but the phrasing, "once.. taken into custody.....restitution"
would be more in the lines of a criminal proceeding.

Cyrus Afzali wrote:

> This is true, but it's very rare that someone will seek civil
> penalties if the event in question is also covered by criminal
> penalties and there's a decent chance the charges will stand up. Why?
> Because you can still collect fines in a criminal proceeding as well
> as win criminal charges.

The damaged party doesn't normally get the money from fines.