Mother Sues Bay Area Rapid Transit for Failing to Stop Her Son from Surfing on Top of Its Trains

Teenagers have always stupid things for stupid reasons. Teenagers will endanger themselves to impress their friends or love interests, to get attention or sympathy, or simply because their bored. Social media, however, has given youth impulsiveness a new motive for getting teenagers killed.  

Daniel Baran graduated from Lowell High School. On January 29, 2025, Baran climbed out of a BART train around Balboa Park Station and died after falling on the tracks. Baran was last seen climbing the rubber spaces where the train carriages meet. Baran’s death is part of a rise of such deaths since 2015 where popular social media accounts show people riding atop city buses, trains, and skyscrapers.  

Daniel Baran’s mother brought a lawsuit against BART for failing to prevent “train surfing.” She alleges that train agency knew that people were climbing on train to record “surfing” videos for social media. Despite this knowledge, BART allegedly allowed riders to “contact the train’s exterior and to climb the spacers to the train’s roof.” Mrs. Baran claims that trains should be equipped with monitors, sensors, or alarms to prevent passengers from accessing the exterior.  

Would Alarms Have Prevented the Incident?  

A company can only be responsible for an injury caused by its product if the product was defectively designed, manufactured incorrectly, or the company failed to provide adequate warning about the dangers involved in using the product. The manufacturer must provide a warning that adequately instructs consumers of the dangers posed by the typical use of the product.  

Sometimes the only one responsible is the person who had a lapse in judgment. BART trains come with doors per car; they are clearly meant to be ridden from inside. There is absolutely no reason an ordinary person needs to be on top of a train. BART certainly wouldn’t anticipate a high school graduate to do something as idiotic as to attempt to “surf” on top of its trains. Monitors, alarms, and sensors should not be necessary to stop a legal adult from killing themselves for internet points.  

Contributory Negligence 

California follows a pure comparative fault rule. This means that a plaintiff can recover damages proportional to their assigned percentage of fault. If a plaintiff is awarded $100,000, but is found to be 80% at fault, then the award is reduced by 80%. Most jurors would intuitively know that the person who climbs on top of a train is primarily responsible for his own injuries. It is possible that BART could have done more to prevent people from riding the top of their trains, but if the lion’s share of fault falls on Daniel Baran, it is unlikely that his family would recover enough from a lawsuit to be worth the time or the effort.  

Do I Need the Help of a Personal Injury Attorney? 

If you have sustained a personal injury through the unlawful act of another, then you should contact a personal injury attorney. A skilled personal injury lawyer near you can review the facts of your case, go over your rights and options, and represent you at hearings and in court.