This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
    Dismiss Notice

Man hit by train forced to pay for rail delays

Discussion in 'Open Discussion (Work-safe)' started by LoKyBuckeye, Oct 14, 2004.

  1. LoKyBuckeye

    LoKyBuckeye I give up. This board is too hard to understand.

    This guy has no luck at all.... :lol:

    Man hit by train forced to pay for rail delays
    Polands state railway PKP is claiming compensation from a man who caused delays to its services by being run over by a train - but said it may forgive the debt after learning the mans house had burned down.

    "We are acting in accordance with article 415 of the Civil Code, seeking damages from a person who caused delays in rail traffic," PKP spokesman Krzysztof Lancucki said on Monday.

    He said 19-year-old Pawel Banaszek, who was paralysed in the incident in August 2003, caused 2,058 zlotys (320 pounds) worth of losses due to delays.

    Half the amount was written off and Banaszek was paying the rest in 80-zloty monthly instalments from his 600-zloty disability pension. Lancucki said he had made three payments so far.

    Earlier, Poland's daily Gazeta Wyborcza reported that Banaszek's house had recently burned down, and Lancucki told Reuters that PKP would most likely write off the remaining debt if Banaszek made a formal request.

    Accounts of how Banaszek ended up lying on the tracks vary.

    Wyborcza said he was beaten up in a bar fight in his home village of Stare Bosewo, central Poland, and left for dead on the rails, though a local prosecutor told Reuters there was no conclusive evidence a fight had taken place.

    Wyborcza quoted Banaszek's father as saying his son's attackers had dragged him onto the tracks to try to fake a suicide.

    But regional prosecutor Robert Strzeminski said: "We didn't have any evidence of a beating ... so we had to treat it as a simple train accident."

    Lancucki said it was not the railway's responsibility to determine how Banaszek got onto the rails.

    "We are the guardians of public property, not a charitable institution, and we have an obligation to seek compensation in the name of the taxpayers," Lancucki told Wyborcza.

    "Mr Banaszek could have turned to a court, but he didn't. He would lose, and the whole affair would cost (him) many times more."
  2. BuckeyeNation27

    BuckeyeNation27 Goal Goal USA! Staff Member

    holy shit this is funny. i can see the sign at the train station: "Railway not responsible for running your beaten ass over.....YOU are."

    and his fucking house burns down....he mustve been a yankee in a previous life and is paying for it in this one :lol:
  3. RugbyBuck

    RugbyBuck Our church has no bells.

    I read the other day that a federal agency is suing an 18 year-old for ten million dollars spent fighting a forest fire that he started by riding an ATV not equipped with a spark inhibitor (whatever that is).
  4. Oh8ch

    Oh8ch Cognoscente of Omphaloskepsis Staff Member

    Finally, a government that is willing to hold people accountable for their own actions.
  5. RugbyBuck

    RugbyBuck Our church has no bells.

    They apparently will settle with his insurance company for his policy limits.
  6. strohs

    strohs Go Bucks!

    are you talking about the railroad or ATV incident?
    if the kid purposely laid down on the tracks, then he should be held accountable.
  7. RugbyBuck

    RugbyBuck Our church has no bells.

    I meant the ATV. His insurance should (not ought to, but will) cover his personal liability for their expenses.

Share This Page