The Fiore piece is interesting. I can’t decide whether to be impressed, angry, scared, or despondent. Do people do what she does, at that level, elsewhere?
In re Margaret Rudin : “In a statement on Wednesday, Adam Breeden, who was representing Rudin alongside attorney Corrine Murphy, said Kishner dismissed the lawsuit “without any decision on the merits for confidential reasons.”
I’m not trying to be daft, but what does that supposed to mean? was there a stipulation or some sort of agreement for dismissal and re-filing? I’m not meaning to degrade A Breeden in any way, it’s just oddly phrased.
I took it (from earlier in the article) that perhaps Ms. Rudin was either not cooperative or coherent to be able to continue with the Action.
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2026 12:04 pm
Sturman retiring…
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2026 12:18 pm
Man leaves casino and climbs through fence onto railroad tracks and is surprised to find that there is a train on said railroad tracks— and then claims its the casino’s fault and railroad’s fault that he is a dumbass.
Landowners have a duty to warn and make safe. However, it sounds like an iffy case filed by a law firm in this super competitive world of personal injury where they take anything that works in the door. They have a deep pocket and an insured corporate entity to pursue. May hinge on notice and failure to repair fence. They plaintiff may be able to show that the casino knew of the potential danger and failed to act. Potentially a very defensible case. Cost of defense settlement? Need more facts to really know the full potential of exposure.
A duty to warn a grown adult that if you crawl onto railroad tracks that trains run on railroad tracks? I would out an OoJ on this early and make an example of this guy.
Based on the complaint P is alleging there is enough pedestrian traffic through this hole that he reasonably believed it was safe. D had a duty to maintain the fence, breached that duty, and the P was injured because of that breach. The elements of negligence are clearly met on the face of the complaint, so a $1 (or unreasonably low) OOJ will not meet the Beattie requirements.
There is certainly some contributory negligence, but D owes P some money in my opinion.
Thank you for explaining this case because I keep getting confused. I assumed that Main Street Station was as much of a train station as Palace Station is, but then I saw that he was hit by a train, so I was like “maybe there really is a train station downtown that I never noticed.”
Shameless the cases some of these PI attorneys take these days. I wish the court treated Rule 11 seriously. Anyway the train was on not their property. No duty to warn of hazards on other people’s properties. That should just be a question of law. Hopefully they got a judge smart enough and moral enough to do the right thing.
2:21 said “No duty to warn of hazards on OTHER people’s properties.” That is indeed the general rule absent a statute or ordinance to the contrary or unless the adjoining property owner created the hazard.
He sued Boyd to keep it in state court. Case is tough no matter what, but really tough in federal court. Plaintiffs counsel is a good attorney and I think the man against the railroad may be better than most think. The case against Boyd is not so strong, but it gets past a motion to dismiss.
What grounds is there for removal for a negligence case other than diversity? There is not, but you are correct that removal can happen for other reasons in general terms, just not in this case.
But railroads are highly regulated by the Federal Government under Federal Railroad Safety Act. So there is likely to be a removal and/or preemption question.
The Fiore piece is interesting. I can’t decide whether to be impressed, angry, scared, or despondent. Do people do what she does, at that level, elsewhere?
I can think of one guy…
Pretty prominent actually.
hint???
orange.
In re Margaret Rudin : “In a statement on Wednesday, Adam Breeden, who was representing Rudin alongside attorney Corrine Murphy, said Kishner dismissed the lawsuit “without any decision on the merits for confidential reasons.”
I’m not trying to be daft, but what does that supposed to mean? was there a stipulation or some sort of agreement for dismissal and re-filing? I’m not meaning to degrade A Breeden in any way, it’s just oddly phrased.
I took it (from earlier in the article) that perhaps Ms. Rudin was either not cooperative or coherent to be able to continue with the Action.
Sturman retiring…
Man leaves casino and climbs through fence onto railroad tracks and is surprised to find that there is a train on said railroad tracks— and then claims its the casino’s fault and railroad’s fault that he is a dumbass.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-las-vegas/downtown/lawsuit-railroad-and-las-vegas-casinos-negligence-led-to-train-striking-man-3604593/?utm_campaign=widget&utm_medium=latest&utm_source=homepage&utm_term=Lawsuit%3A%20Railroad%20and%20Las%20Vegas%20casino%E2%80%99s%20negligence%20led%20to%20train%20striking%20man
Landowners have a duty to warn and make safe. However, it sounds like an iffy case filed by a law firm in this super competitive world of personal injury where they take anything that works in the door. They have a deep pocket and an insured corporate entity to pursue. May hinge on notice and failure to repair fence. They plaintiff may be able to show that the casino knew of the potential danger and failed to act. Potentially a very defensible case. Cost of defense settlement? Need more facts to really know the full potential of exposure.
A duty to warn a grown adult that if you crawl onto railroad tracks that trains run on railroad tracks? I would out an OoJ on this early and make an example of this guy.
Based on the complaint P is alleging there is enough pedestrian traffic through this hole that he reasonably believed it was safe. D had a duty to maintain the fence, breached that duty, and the P was injured because of that breach. The elements of negligence are clearly met on the face of the complaint, so a $1 (or unreasonably low) OOJ will not meet the Beattie requirements.
There is certainly some contributory negligence, but D owes P some money in my opinion.
eyeroll
The lack of accountability that rolls of P lawyers’ tongues is astounding sometimes.
Thank you for explaining this case because I keep getting confused. I assumed that Main Street Station was as much of a train station as Palace Station is, but then I saw that he was hit by a train, so I was like “maybe there really is a train station downtown that I never noticed.”
4:20pm Hi transplant how new are you
RUDE
Shameless the cases some of these PI attorneys take these days. I wish the court treated Rule 11 seriously. Anyway the train was on not their property. No duty to warn of hazards on other people’s properties. That should just be a question of law. Hopefully they got a judge smart enough and moral enough to do the right thing.
No duty to warn invitees of known hazards on or near your property? I’m fairly certain the law says otherwise.
2:21 said “No duty to warn of hazards on OTHER people’s properties.” That is indeed the general rule absent a statute or ordinance to the contrary or unless the adjoining property owner created the hazard.
THIS
He sued Boyd to keep it in state court. Case is tough no matter what, but really tough in federal court. Plaintiffs counsel is a good attorney and I think the man against the railroad may be better than most think. The case against Boyd is not so strong, but it gets past a motion to dismiss.
Suing one local defendant doesn’t stop other defendants from removing to federal court if they have grounds.
What grounds is there for removal for a negligence case other than diversity? There is not, but you are correct that removal can happen for other reasons in general terms, just not in this case.
Trains implicate interstate commerce, which is regulated by Congress, and therefore, there’s federal question jurisdiction.
/s
Cars implicate interstate commerce too. Interstate commerce doesn’t allow for removal and is not a federal question.
But railroads are highly regulated by the Federal Government under Federal Railroad Safety Act. So there is likely to be a removal and/or preemption question.
Oh dear, maybe google railroads?
Nah. There were no railroad cases in law school.