The Columbia Chronicle Online

Taking the public for a ride
Rachel Barton’s fight for justice was anything but

By Billy O'Keefe
Viewpoints/New Media Editor

True story: A North Carolina man purchased a box of twelve rather pricey cigars, and insured them against fire. Not water, fire. After smoking the cigars (using fire to light them, of course) the man figured he had an ingenious claim against the insurance company and filed for damages.

For obvious reasons (if you don’t know, stop reading immediately), the insurance company refused to pay the man, and he filed suit. Since the cigars were insured against such activity, the judge ruled in favor of the man. With money up to his ears, the man celebrated by marrying the woman who sued McDonald’s after spilling hot coffee in her own lap.

Pretty smart guy, right? Not exactly. In the time it takes to say “that’s a pretty stupid idea,” the insurance company fired back and had the man arrested — and convicted — on twelve separate counts of arson.

If only every case could go so well. Unfortunately, the torch has been passed on to younger, fresher talent, in order to insure disorder in the court for years to come. The rookie of the year? Rachel Barton.

* * * * *

“I’m really quite stunned. I thought juries had more sense than that.”

- University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein

On Jan. 16, 1995, renowned violinist Rachel Barton boarded a Metra train to Winnetka, where she gave private lessons. An occasional rider of the train, Barton brought with her four separate items: a lunch bag; a purse; a book bag; and an Amati violin, aged over three centuries and worth around half a million dollars.

When she arrived at her destination, Barton struggled with all her luggage to exit the train. When the doors closed, the violin was caught inside with part of the strap, most of which still rested on Barton’s shoulder outside the train. Rather than free herself from the strap, Barton waited for a conductor to spot her and reopen the doors. It did not happen, and the train started to move. Her arm still inside the strap, Barton was dragged nearly 400 feet before the train came to a halt. Her left leg was severed in the accident, her right leg maimed.

* * * * *

“What do you think your legs are worth? You can’t put a price on that.”

- Juror Lisa Dixon

Still, Dixon and eleven other jurors did just that. This past Monday, Barton was awarded a sum of $29.6 million dollars in her lawsuit against Chicago North Western Railroad/Union Pacific and Metra: over $18.8 million from C&NW, over $9.9 million from Metra. The jury originally awarded the violinist over $30 million but subtracted 4.5 percent of the damages when they agreed that Barton was 4.5 percent responsible for the mishap. (You remember the last time you were 4.5 percent responsible for something, don’t you?)

Now, it’s no secret that what happened to Rachel Barton was awful. No one should have to suffer through that kind of pain, that kind of loss. Thus, you’re probably saying to yourself, “What is this, a news story!? Tell me I don’t know!” Well calm down, because this is where the debate begins.

The central argument in the case is whether Rachel Barton had the power to free herself from the shoulder strap, and whether or not she suffered because she tried to save her violin rather than remove her arm. Barton’s attorney, Robert A. Clifford, claimed that the doors trapped her in the strap. The defense argued otherwise, and they won the argument standing still, even if the jurors did not take notice.

Clifford never denied testimony that Barton made no attempt to struggle free until after the train was moving. Not only does this not push the claim further, it clouds its factual truth; how could Barton know she was pinned by the strap if only then she tried to free herself? After all, it’s that much harder to free yourself when fighting the additional momentum of a moving train. Such questions were never answered head-on, and suspicions arose that Barton was foolishly trying to save the expensive violin rather than ponder the consequences of such a maneuver.

Instead of fighting facts with facts, Barton’s team countered with theatrical re-enactments of the events (even hiring a double to play Barton), provoked unnecessary exploration of the difficulties of everyday life since the accident (sex and bathroom activity being the most emphasized for some odd, odd reason) and then used the media to chastise the defense for violating her privacy during cross-examination on these same topics.

Instead of facts, Barton’s lawyers employed tear-jerking techniques and fluff straight out of Sally Jesse Raphael country. “What we were worried about was that Rachel was really upset about the way she looked — her physical appearance,” noted juror Ken Strzelczyk.

It’s not at all wrong to feel concern or at least pity for Barton’s plight — IF you’re watching the case on television. The courtroom, however, demands a tad more objectivity. Just a tad.

And you know what? The jurors lived up to such expectations beautifully. And you know what else? I just lied to you. In fact, the behavior of the jury was anything but professional. They became overtly friendly during the course of the trial. They cried foul to the press when the defense was “cruel” to and “harsh” on Barton. When the verdict was read, every single Juror embraced Barton in some way, most often with hugs. Said Barton herself, “We felt like old friends... It was very personal.” My sentiments exactly.

Perhaps the jury got a lesson in courtroom etiquette from Barton herself: After the victory, the violinist promised court clerks and bailiffs a private concert. The offer has yet to be denied. Talk about taking sides.

* * * * *

“I do hope that you will now allow me to put the public aspect of this terrible tragedy behind me and allow me to focus on my music.”

- Rachel Barton, after the verdict was announced

Now that the trial is over (for now, until the losing parties appeal the case), Barton would like very much to have her life back. According to her, it was extremely difficult to relive repeatedly the events of four years ago during the course of the month-long trial.

Of course, it’s not as if she didn’t have a choice. Barton and her attorneys were offered as much as $10 million to settle out of court, away from the supposedly unwanted spotlight of the public and the press. They turned down the offer, and refused to listen any further.

So either Barton is lying through her teeth, or she’s been smitten by the possibility of turning her accident into a big payday. Will $30 million repair the damage that $10 million could not? Of course not. So, as we college brats say, what’s the dilly?

It’s simple. Barton’s lawyers knew they had emotion on their side, and they turned that emotion into the cash-making Kleenex fest it was. Clifford originally asked the jury to consider rewarding Barton a staggering $66 million in damages, and then upped the ante all the way to over $520 million at one point. The basis of such a spike was that, according to Clifford, if the jury wanted the rail companies to be “punished” for what they supposedly did to Barton, such an amount would do the trick.

Never mind that the many thousands of people who ride Metra every day would be punished as well, with necessary rate increases, in addition to innocent workers who might be out of the job if such a financial hit were to take place. And it doesn’t matter that, as several jurors childishly noted, the people in this case would never ride a train the same way again. That’s both stupid and selfish.

The fact is, millions of people ride the train every day, and safely. And you know what? It’s not hard at all. The doors open, the doors close, the train moves, usually on a track. If you have tons of luggage to carry with you, take a cab, or organize yourself. (In Barton’s case, stuff the lunch bag and the purse in the backpack. Smoosh the sandwich if you have to.) Of course mishaps will still happen, but does that mean we should reduce ourselves to children, and the train and all that surrounds it to a nursery? If we’re not blaming the train stations and companies for mishaps like Barton’s, we cry foul and build a sign whenever and wherever a car gets smacked around trying to race through the gates as they’re coming down.

* * * * *

“I hope to be known for my music and not for my injuries.”

- Rachel Barton, after the verdict was announced.

Not likely, not after the regrettable events of the past month. There is so much that is wrong with this case and its execution, far too much ground to cover in such a short amount of space here. Perhaps Barton is not at fault, and perhaps she was trapped. But who really knows, after the despicable, manipulative case her lawyers presented? Barton and company should be viciously ashamed of themselves for this blatant display of self-righteous pseudo justice. Whether Metra and C&NW appeal the verdict will largely depend on the publicity such a move would generate (probably not good). In any case, the rail companies deserve a fair shake. Here’s hoping they get it.

Sources: WGN-TV, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times.