Trespassing student killed by train — and parents sue
August 30, 2010 by Taylor HanniganPosted in: From the Courts, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views
It was late at night, and the student was trespassing in a dangerous area off school grounds. But it was the school’s fault that she was struck and killed by a train, her parents said.
Late one night in February 2005, Boston University students Molly Ferguson Shattuck and Andrew Voluck decided to take a late-night break by taking a walk in a rail yard that borders the campus.
The yard did not have a passenger station and wasn’t meant for public use. Shattuck and Voluck apparently gained access by going through a hole in a fence. While walking near a track, they were struck and killed by a commuter train.
Shattuck’s parents faulted the school, among others. They said the school’s website and police handbook contractually obligated it to protect its students from harm.
No way, said the court. Throwing out the claim before it could get to trial, the court said no reasonable jury could find the school breached a contractual duty owed to Shattuck. The danger posed by the yard was obvious, and the school did not have a duty to warn about or remedy it.
Cite: Shattuck v. Trustees of Boston University.
Did the court get it right? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.
HigherEdMorning delivers the latest HigherEd news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HigherEd professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to HigherEdMorning!
Tags: Boston University, duty to warn, student injuries, trespassing
Loading ...
September 1st, 2010 at 5:48 pm
“Did the court get it right?”
Absolutely! I find it disgusting that these parents valued their children so little that they would feel that, as adults, their children were not capable of accepting responsibility for their own actions. Life must be a hollow, bleak experience for these folks.
September 2nd, 2010 at 8:49 am
Of course the court got it right!
The idea behind the suit is wrong on two fronts. First, it would hold liable a person or institution for damages almost no matter how remote the likelihood of harm or how tiny the institution’s involvement. Second, the result of such suits (and the fear of them) leads to a massive overabundance of caution, and to a tsunami of warnings that are simply ignored, when not actually ridiculed, by the population they are intended to “protect.”
To be more snippy: the parents’ actions were what one does in a nanny society in which afternoon TV advertising is dominated by personal injury law firms: assume someone else is responsible and that they may owe you money.
Somewhat off topic: I’m amazed at the number of people who are hit by trains, which can’t exactly sneak up on you.
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Sadly, this was a poor choice by a person. A fence with a hole in it, is still a fence and should be duly noted.
September 8th, 2010 at 11:13 am
These are college students and they are adults and responsible for their own choices. Universities cannot be 24/7 guards for students. If they needed full time adult supervision, that is the obligation of their parents.
September 8th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
This was obviously a very tragic situation, but those of us in higher education see variations of this theme on many different levels. College students sometimes make dumb decisions which lead to unfortunate circumstances. However, very often their parents come storming to the rescue, all full of bluster and indignation, absolutely sure that someone ELSE must be to blame. It’s a shame. If students don’t learn from their parents that they are ultimately responsible for their own actions, no amount of college classes will teach them.
September 8th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
I hope the parents had to pay the financial cost the college had to spend to defend itself against this lawsuit– if the parents had done THEIR JOB in teaching their child what a fence means and that a big motorized thing ran on that big metal rail perhaps their child would not have been trespassing or been close to the metal rail. you cannot expect college to teach common sense when the home environment doesn’t.
September 11th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
this girl was my girlfriend’s best friend, it was truly a terrible tragedy. very difficult for everyone involved
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:14 pm
The Court got it wrong! Molly’s parents did the right thing so that other parents might not get their hearts torn from them the way they did. Yes, we are all responsible for our actions, and Molly and Andy paid the ultimate price, but that doesn’t releave the property owners and transportation agencies from their responsibilities to protect lives the best they can. We are not talking about unreasonable measures to make the railroad facilities much safer than they are right now.
Molly and Andy were two young people who were loved by their families and the value of their lives were precious, and their lives should be considered in what level of protection the railroad agencies and property owners secure and operate their facilities.
When a railroad operates in a highly populated urban area, serious care and consideration needs to be implemented in securing the railroad right-of-way. You can’t just put all this responsibility on students, young people and other pedestrians, even if they are trespassers. Young people are risk takers by nature. Molly, Andy and many others paid with their lives for taking this risk, but does this mean if the railroad or property owner could have done something to avoid a trespasser fatality, they shouldn’t do it, or have the responsibility to do it. The railroad knows there has been many trespassing fatalities in the Boston Metropolitan Area over the past decade (more than other city transit authorities much larger).
It’s true that many railroad fatalities are suicides, but many are not.
The railroad adjacent to the MassTurnpike (Framingham Line) is especially dangerous! Since there is only one track that is utilized by the Commuter Rail on this line, the trains run what is called “Push-Pull Operation.” That means the train doesn’t turn around. The train backs into the City with the engine located in the rear of the locomotive with a conductor operating it remotely from the other end. On the way out of the City the Engine is in front as in normal operation.
When a push-pull train passes by BU entering the City, you would not hear the train because the engineer is on the tail end. It’s a silent train! For this particular line, did you know that the MBTA /MBCR instructs their conductor’s to run their night trains with the headlights on DIM? Why? Because the Framingham line runs directly adjacent to the MassTurnpike.
So, it is not surprising that trespassing fatalities occur on this line, because the trespassers probably are not aware that the a DARK-SILENT train is approaching. According to federal FRA standards, the headlights on locomotives should site obstructions in front of the locomotive 800-ft in front. Because the Framingham line runs its trains on dim, they by the time they spot a trespasser at night to blow the whistle, it’s too late. In Molly and Andy’s case, the conductor should have had several seconds to blow the whistle (with 800-ft of visabilty). The whistle was not even blown at all in their case, but it’s not the conductor’s fault because he was required to run the headlights on dim.
What would it cost to install an anti-glare fence adjacent to the MassTurnpike?
What would it cost to perform regular inspection and maintenance to railroad security fencing in highly populated locations?
Other technology exists to actually detect trespassers and sound alarms when they enter railroad right-of-ways. Other States implement this technology. Why doesn’t Boston?
Before you put all the responsibility of this tragedy on Molly, Andy, or their parents, consider their worth. Have you ever loved somebody? Think of them. What are they worth to you? What if this happened to them?
Have you ever done anything stupid? I have. It’s only by God’s mercy I’m alive. None of us are perfect. We make mistakes. We takes risks. Sometimes we pay the price. All I am saying is Molly and Andy and others didn’t need to die. Others didn’t either. With a little bit of planning and a little bit of investment by the proper authorities, future fatalities of those we love can be avoided.
I have never met Molly’s parents, but I would love to. I wouldn’t shake their hands; I would hug them! Molly’s parent’s did the right thing! They can’t get Molly back! You don’t understand. They weren’t doing this for the money, or out of revenge, or even for Molly. They did this for you.