Carl Ricker, Jr. v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad and Metro Transit Authority

Carl Ricker, Jr. v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad and Metro Transit Authority

Case Name

Carl Ricker, Jr. v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad and Metro Transit Authority

Type of Injury

SCHIZOPHRENIC CLIMBS HIGH-TENSION TOWER AND COMES IN CONTACT WITH WIRES

Occupation

unemployed

Location

NY

Verdict

Defense verdict (6/0)

Verdict Amount

$0.00

Case Details

XIII/4-8 RAILROAD ACCIDENT SCHIZOPHRENIC CLIMBS HIGH-TENSION TOWER AND COMES IN CONTACT WITH WIRES FAILURE TO PLACE WARNINGS DEFENSE VERDICT

Carl Ricker, Jr. v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad and Metro Transit Authority 8158/89 3-week trial Verdict 6/6/95 Judge Gerald Esposito, Bronx Supreme

VERDICT: Defense verdict (6/0). Jury: 2 male, 4 female. Post- trial motions were denied in November 1995.

Pltf. Atty: Alan M. Shapey and Abdul Mujib Mennen of Harry H. Lipsig & Partners, Manhattan

Deft. Atty: Rudyard F. Whyte of Jackson & Consumano, Manhattan

Facts: On 9/12/88 at approximately 10 AM, Pltf., age 23 and unemployed at the time, was found suffering from the effects of a severe electrical shock near the Riverdale train station. Pltf., a schizophrenic, had taken a bus from Pennsylvania to New York. He claimed that he was walking along the tracks by the Hudson River between the Riverdale and Spuyten Duyvil stations and climbed 40 feet up a high-tension tower to get a better view of the city. Pltf. testified that he came in contact with a wire containing approximately 11,000 volts, and was thrown off the tower. He was found 1?-2 days later. Pltf. argued that Deft. negligently failed to put up warning signs or fencing to prevent the public from entering the area or climbing deterrents to prevent people from climbing the tower. Pltf. testified that he was able to walk from the Riverdale park to the tower without encountering any barriers. Pltf.’s expert testified that Deft. should have installed climbing deterrents or fencing with barbed wire to deter climbers. A member of the community testified that people frequently entered the area.

Deft. contended that Pltf. was in a schizophrenic state and that he would have ignored fencing and disobeyed warning signs if they were posted . Deft. contended that the tower is in a remote area away from the public . Deft.’s expert testified that wires at such a height are a sufficient deterrent to the public and could not be insulated because they would become too heavy. Two EMS technicians testified that they found Pltf. conscious at the scene and that he said he tried to kill himself. Pltf. denied making that statement and claimed that he was found unconscious. Pltf. admitted that he abused drugs and alcohol prior to the diagnosis of schizophrenia. Deft. produced uncertified records of alcohol use following his discharge from psychiatric care.

Injuries: Pltf.’s left (nondominant) arm was burned off by the force of the electrical shock. He also suffered the loss of use of the right ( dominant) arm, burns to the head requiring a craniotomy, and third-degree burns to the femur. Pltf. remained in Jacobi Hospital for 8 months and was transferred to The Greenery, a long-care facility in Andover, Massachusetts. He received medication for his seizures, treatment for psychiatric problems, and required 24-hour care. Demonstrative evidence: graphs; maps; photographs of the location, park, and Pltf. Offer: $300, 000; demand: $5,000,000. Jury deliberation: 3 hours. Pltf. Experts: Dr. Mark Rubenstein, psychiatrist, Manhattan; Dr. Jay Rosenblum, neurologist, Manhattan; Edmond Provder, vocational rehabilitation, Manhattan; Jack Gordon, electrical engineer, Manhattan. Deft. Experts: Dr. William Head, neuropsychiatrist, Manhattan; Leonard Weiss, engineer, Brooklyn.

Disclaimer: The information on this website and blog is for general informational purposes only and is not professional advice. We make no guarantees of accuracy or completeness. We disclaim all liability for errors, omissions, or reliance on this content. Always consult a qualified professional for specific guidance.

RECENT POSTS

Life Care Planning Expert Witness's Role in Personal Injury Cases
December 1, 2025
This article explains what a life care planner does, how they serve as expert witnesses, and why their role is crucial in personal injury cases in the United States.
Why Earning Capacity Assessments Are Key for Fair Injury Claims
November 17, 2025
Learn why earning capacity assessments are vital for fair personal injury claims, how these vocational assessments are done, across the United States with OAS.
How Vocational Evaluations Affect Divorce and Spousal Support
November 3, 2025
Explore how vocational evaluations influence divorce, alimony, and spousal support. See how OAS experts deliver fair, court-ready assessments nationwide.
Vocational Evaluation in Personal Injury Cases
October 20, 2025
Learn how vocational evaluation documents work capacity, future earning losses, and job limits to support personal injury claims. See OAS Inc’s approach.
The Role of a Vocational Expert in Determining Spousal Support
October 6, 2025
In this article, we’ll explain what a vocational expert does, why their role is important in vocational evaluation for divorce & matrimonial cases. Call us now

CONTACT US