Dead Teen Sued for Flying Body Parts

jimbob123432

New member
Apr 8, 2011
245
0
0
http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/130874/dead_teen_sued_by_victim
"You think you've heard it all until I tell you that an appeals court in Illinois recently ruled that a woman is allowed to sue a dead teen's estate for injuries caused by his flying body parts. The 18-year-old boy was running across the Amtrak tracks to catch another train but didn't make it -- he was hit by an oncoming train going 70 mph and his body was torn apart by the force and flung onto a nearby passengers' waiting platform. The woman, 58, was struck by a sizable chunk of the boy's body and was knocked to the ground, breaking her leg and wrist. The court ruled that the boy's death was "reasonably foreseeable" and that his estate can be held responsible for his negligence.

I'm sorry, but who goes around suing a dead teen whose body was ripped to shreds in one of the most gruesome ways imaginable?"

I... I have no words. Comments & thoughts?
 

Plucky

Enthusiast Magician
Jan 16, 2011
448
0
0
Seems a bit silly, i mean if someone was running in between the tracks and such, wouldn't it make more sense to highten safety and such (with things like fences and stuff) and besides, if there was flying chunks, wouldn't people have time to react and block?

Its not like a Leg and a Wrist would make life hard for the woman, i mean...err...no crutches.. guess theres always the single crutch if they were both on the right side...?

Someone just died, they should think about how lucky they got unscathed and that they can still have a quality of life, even with the injuries. D:


EDIT: i mean someone can still move about if the left leg was broke, but the right wrist was shattered, thus meaning theres perfect symmetry...somewhat, though its better to use both hands for crutches than just using the one, safer too.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,885
2,233
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
Blablahb said:
The moral of the story perhaps should be that she should drink some milk. If being merely falling to the ground causes her to break several bones, something is really really wrong. That's not supposed to happen untill a very advanced age.
That really depends on how awkward the fall is. If you manage to catch yourself, get your balance during the fall, and roll with the falling motion then you won't get hurt. If the fall is really awkward and you're not prepared for it you can hurt yourself really badly regardless of the height.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
On one hand, it really was the teen's fault. This is why you don't train-dodge.

On the other hand, way to kick his family while they're down! D:<
 

longboardfan

New member
Jul 27, 2011
166
0
0
First off, you're reading the story 5th hand. Here's a more complete article reported on by an actual newspaper. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-train-fatality-suit-20111229,0,1641941.story

1) The woman was 58 at the time, just in time for osteoporosis to settle in. You're also missing this part: "A large portion of his body was thrown about 100 feet on to the southbound platform, where it struck Gayane Zokhrabov" A large portion, like the trunk of the body, weighs quite a bit and at the force it must have hit did shatter bones.

2) After the appeals process this was quoted: "it ultimately was a straightforward negligence case, no different than if a train passenger had been injured after the engineer hit the brakes."

3) I don't know if you've been to an ER room in a hospital recently for a serious injury, but its rather expensive. Think thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars, made up of multiple bills from many companies and individuals including the ambulance company. The processing and appeals and consolidation of the bills and getting insurance approval for each and every one of them takes months if not years. So yeah, I'd sue too.

4) She didn't sue a dead person, she sued the estate (which amounts to the parents or legal guardians).
 

bojackx

New member
Nov 14, 2010
807
0
0
Blablahb said:
ravensheart18 said:
If he was in a car accident, died, an someone else was injured do you think that they wouldn't expect compensation just because he also died? Not a chance.
Big difference there: making a mistake while driving a car, causing a crash and damages is a decision, and one with a very direct link between the damage and the decision. Getting run over by a train is not. He wanted to run across the tracks, not have himself splattered all over the place to hurt others. The link between the kid's bad decision and the consequences is pretty weak, and shouldn't lead to this silly lawsuit.

The moral of the story perhaps should be that she should drink some milk. If being merely falling to the ground causes her to break several bones, something is really really wrong. That's not supposed to happen untill a very advanced age.
But... a driver doesn't choose to crash...? They choose to drive recklessly, just like how reckless the kid was to run across train tracks...
 

jakko12345

New member
Dec 23, 2010
321
0
0
In defense of the woman, being hit by a flying body part must have been pretty fucking emotionally scarring. And the fact it was due to severe negligence on the teen's part does give valid reason for her to get some compensation.
 

Akimoto

New member
Nov 22, 2011
459
0
0
It seems the law applies to the dead too. Maybe that's why BDU guys wear those tough suits? I heard some stories about why BDU guys wear bright orange, explosive-resistence suits from my stint in the army. To be honest, it was a rather macabre reasoning.
 

Skipper zammo

New member
Oct 11, 2011
88
0
0
To be honest, I'd say say the moral of the story is not to run across train tracks.
I GREATLY increases your chances of getting hit by a train.
 

balanovich

New member
Jan 25, 2010
235
0
0
ravensheart18 said:
We had a thread on ths week or so back. If you understand the law it pretty straight liaility and is a reasonable lawsuit. The teen, through his negligent action caused injury to others. His dying due to his actions does not release his estate from liability.

If he was in a car accident, died, an someone else was injured do you think that they wouldn't expect compensation just because he also died? Not a chance.
I understand your logic,but:
The court ruled that the boy's death was "reasonably foreseeable"
huh...obviously not to him. You can't think "I might get hit by the train but it won't hurt." So he had to be sure that he would succeed.
I really don't see how "reasonably foreseeable" was determined. Even so, how do you go from "getting hit by a train" to "my flying limbs might injure someone"?

And where the hell did this happen for a train to be going 70 mph???

However the court only gave permission to sue... so maybe your pure logic without context was all that mattered and the context will be considered during the lawsuit.


Dirty Hipsters said:
Just because she CAN still move around doesn't mean that she should have to pay medical bills for and injury that she didn't cause and which wasn't her fault. Someone died? Boo hoo. Now we focus on the people who are alive and need medical attention because of him.
That's why there should be free universal healthcare.
 

Adam Galli

New member
Nov 26, 2010
700
0
0
What the hell is wrong with people these days. I thought ambulance chasers were bad enough. "I'm sorry your son died but I'll see you in court."
 

evilneko

Fall in line!
Jun 16, 2011
2,218
49
53
Hey OP, I got a better link for you.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-train-fatality-suit-20111229,0,1641941.story

Next time, instead of linking a blog, find the original article.
 

LorienvArden

New member
Feb 28, 2011
230
0
0
Last time I checked there are signs, posters and warnings EVERYWHERE that specificly say "DO NOT CROSS TRACKS". At least in our country. I remember similar warnings in Chicago, so I suppose they aren't a novelty in the US either.

It was a stupid idea of his to do it, and he didn't make it through to regret it. It is unfortunate and a bit makabre, but I think the lawsuit is justified as the women in question has health costs that where directly caused by the late teens actions.
 

Muspelheim

New member
Apr 7, 2011
2,023
0
0
Lawl, Amerikaner...

Honestly, shouldn't there be a point where the court just says "No. You can't do that" or something? It's like one of those "Americans sue everything"-jokes, just exceptionally less fun considering it's real.

jakko12345 said:
In defense of the woman, being hit by a flying body part must have been pretty fucking emotionally scarring. And the fact it was due to severe negligence on the teen's part does give valid reason for her to get some compensation.
Perhaps, it's not the most pleasant experience to be had... But surely, there are better methods for her to deal with that than to sue her way out of it? And yes, being struck by another person's disloged arm and getting injured as a result could perhaps be reason enough for some compensation, but it's exceptionally tasteless to drag that teenager's parents in court like it's all their fault.

It was the kid's own bloody fault, yes, but it's a nasty way to loose a relative, and if you have a modicum of tact in your body, you'd at least let them bury the poor chap before demanding they show up in court.
 

Cyrus Hanley

New member
Oct 13, 2010
403
0
0
I would have sued too.

It's bad enough that she broke a leg and a wrist at her age, she now has to deal with all of the subsequent medical expenses. She shouldn't have to put the welfare of a dead kid above her own and it's not her fault that his poor judgment led to him running across those railway tracks.