From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 08-Dec-15 12:50, henhanna@gmail.com wrote:   
   > On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 4:25:53 PM UTC-8, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
   >> Congress only gave them jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns in very   
   >> specific circumstances, none of which applied here.  Therefore, they   
   >> lacked subject matter--not personal--jurisdiction.   
   >>   
   >> They _did_ appear to have personal and territorial jurisdiction, but   
   >> without subject-matter jurisdiction too, that was moot.   
   >   
   > Hello.  Thanks for the comments.   That makes sense.   
   >   
   >> They _did_ appear to have ... territorial jurisdiction,   
   >   
   >             territorial jurisdiction -- really?   
   > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_jurisdiction   
      
   Yes; due to "long arm" laws, as long as _part_ of the act (in this case,   
   the sale of her ticket by a US travel agent) is within the court's   
   territorial jurisdiction, then the rest of the act is as well.   
      
   This is how, for instance, the US prosecutes people for war crimes or   
   terrorism committed overseas; as long as _part_ of the act was in the US   
   (even if that part alone was completely legal!), we can prosecute them   
   for the _entire_ act.   
      
   > 1.  She asked for 20 million dollars.   
   >    I'm assuming such high awards don't happen in Europe.   
      
   Probably not.   
      
   > 2. The following newspaper article (from 2 years ago)   
   >       includes this sentence.   
   >   
   >> Fakt sei aber, dass "auf fahrende Züge" "nicht aufgesprungen werden"   
   dürfe.   
      
   Google Translate is having trouble with that portion, so I'm not sure   
   what it means.  Another quote from the same article seems to be easier   
   to translate:   
      
   "Specifically, the woman in Innsbruck tried yet to jump on a departing   
   train."   
      
   It's unclear what "departing" means or even if that's the correct   
   translation, but this sounds quite dissimilar to high-profile cases in   
   the US where a passenger fell through a platform gap (due to negligent   
   maintenance) or got caught in a door (due to negligent design or   
   maintenance) while the train was _stationary_.   
      
   >  This is the only hint or suggestion of her [carelessness]   
   >        (or   her [contributory negligence]  )   
   >          that I've seen or read  so far.   
      
   That is a very important point, and I have no clue how Austrian laws or   
   courts deal with contributory negligence--or if they even recognize it.   
      
   Even if she was found _mostly_ at fault in a US court, that still   
   wouldn't go well for ÖBB, and the inevitable result would be that all   
   European railways would ban all sales of tickets in the US to protect   
   themselves from idiotic US courts.   
      
   > With American lawyers are preparing now for a possible process for   
   > the incident.   
      
   They have now lost, and further appeal seems unlikely to succeed, so any   
   further efforts (in US courts, at least) seem pointless.   
      
   I assume ÖBB has similar immunity in Austrian courts, so there is   
   probably nothing she can do there either--and that's why she tried to   
   sue ÖBB in a US court instead.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)