Dead Teen Sued for Flying Body Parts

[DSQ]

Only in America... /sigh

Your kidding right? In japan this kinda thing is standard practice. If someone in your family uses the train track to commit suicide the automaticly fine the family for train delays and clean up costs.

 

[VoidWanderer]

Only in America... /sigh

Your kidding right? In japan this kinda thing is standard practice. If someone in your family uses the train track to commit suicide the automaticly fine the family for train delays and clean up costs.

Suing a DEAD person for circumstances beyond their control is not a standard practise. Fining family for disrupting train services while incredibly macabre I can understand as no-one is singularly gaining money from it.

There is a difference, you may not see it as big, but there is a difference between suing dead people, and fining a living family.

 

[Zetatrain]

Well here is my opinion on the matter.

The woman does have the right to sue since the boy's actions were reckless, and assuming that the insurance company will not pay for the damages or she does not have any.

I will admit that it is, or at least seems, a bit dickish to bring this up so soon after the boy's death, but when is it going to be a good time. If it was brought up a few weeks or months after the kid was buried then we would people saying that the family just got over mourning their dead son and how horrible she is for dragging them through the lawsuit. Plus there is also the probability that she will soon need the money in order to pay for medical expenses.

 

[Whateveralot]

Imagine standing there, waiting for the train to come, and suddenly some idiot runs across the tracks, gets hit and you get hit by a torn part of his body.

I'd be friggin traumatized.

PS. Did he make it to the train?

 

[Shadowkire]

Only in America... /sigh

Your kidding right? In japan this kinda thing is standard practice. If someone in your family uses the train track to commit suicide the automaticly fine the family for train delays and clean up costs.

Suing a DEAD person for circumstances beyond their control is not a standard practise. Fining family for disrupting train services while incredibly macabre I can understand as no-one is singularly gaining money from it.

There is a difference, you may not see it as big, but there is a difference between suing dead people, and fining a living family.

What was beyond the control of the dead man? Trains can only run on a particular path, that path is very obvious, he was at a train station where signs are posted everywhere saying not to cross the tracks.

 

[VoidWanderer]

Only in America... /sigh

Your kidding right? In japan this kinda thing is standard practice. If someone in your family uses the train track to commit suicide the automaticly fine the family for train delays and clean up costs.

Suing a DEAD person for circumstances beyond their control is not a standard practise. Fining family for disrupting train services while incredibly macabre I can understand as no-one is singularly gaining money from it.

There is a difference, you may not see it as big, but there is a difference between suing dead people, and fining a living family.

What was beyond the control of the dead man? Trains can only run on a particular path, that path is very obvious, he was at a train station where signs are posted everywhere saying not to cross the tracks.

The momentum of his limbs. if he was deliberately trying to hit people with his dismembered corpse, then go ahead and sue him, but as I highly doubt that was the end-goal, causing further emotional and financial strife for his family seems to be a pretty big dick-move.

 

[Shadowkire]

....

Huh?

Say, everyone is arguing over who is wrong here, the dead teen or the old kook.

Has it ever occurred to you that if you saw a limbless torso flung across my yard towards you I think you kinda deserve those broken limbs.

...

Wait, I phrased that wrong: She saw a large limbless torso flung over her fence and onto her. Why didn't she dodge?

The train was moving at 70 miles per hour.
The lady was 100 feet away.

Assuming the body part that struck the lady attained the same speed as the train:

70mph = 1.1+ miles per minute = 5800+ feet per minute = 96++ feet per second.

This means the body part could have struck the lady in just over 1 second.

Also consider she may not have been facing the accident and therefore would not have seen the body part coming.

 

[Shadowkire]

Suing a DEAD person for circumstances beyond their control is not a standard practise. Fining family for disrupting train services while incredibly macabre I can understand as no-one is singularly gaining money from it.

There is a difference, you may not see it as big, but there is a difference between suing dead people, and fining a living family.

What was beyond the control of the dead man? Trains can only run on a particular path, that path is very obvious, he was at a train station where signs are posted everywhere saying not to cross the tracks.

The momentum of his limbs. if he was deliberately trying to hit people with his dismembered corpse, then go ahead and sue him, but as I highly doubt that was the end-goal, causing further emotional and financial strife for his family seems to be a pretty big dick-move.

People who cause car accidents don't intend the damage they cause, yet it is still their responsibility to pay for the damage. Likewise the man did not intend for his actions to cause harm, but even in death he still needs to pay for the damage his actions caused.

 

[VoidWanderer]

Suing a DEAD person for circumstances beyond their control is not a standard practise. Fining family for disrupting train services while incredibly macabre I can understand as no-one is singularly gaining money from it.

There is a difference, you may not see it as big, but there is a difference between suing dead people, and fining a living family.

What was beyond the control of the dead man? Trains can only run on a particular path, that path is very obvious, he was at a train station where signs are posted everywhere saying not to cross the tracks.

The momentum of his limbs. if he was deliberately trying to hit people with his dismembered corpse, then go ahead and sue him, but as I highly doubt that was the end-goal, causing further emotional and financial strife for his family seems to be a pretty big dick-move.

People who cause car accidents don't intend the damage they cause, yet it is still their responsibility to pay for the damage. Likewise the man did not intend for his actions to cause harm, but even in death he still needs to pay for the damage his actions caused.

True but isn't that through insurance companies, and not personal bank accounts?

Even so, how often do the families of those drivers get sued?

 

[Shadowkire]

Suing a DEAD person for circumstances beyond their control is not a standard practise. Fining family for disrupting train services while incredibly macabre I can understand as no-one is singularly gaining money from it.

There is a difference, you may not see it as big, but there is a difference between suing dead people, and fining a living family.

What was beyond the control of the dead man? Trains can only run on a particular path, that path is very obvious, he was at a train station where signs are posted everywhere saying not to cross the tracks.

The momentum of his limbs. if he was deliberately trying to hit people with his dismembered corpse, then go ahead and sue him, but as I highly doubt that was the end-goal, causing further emotional and financial strife for his family seems to be a pretty big dick-move.

People who cause car accidents don't intend the damage they cause, yet it is still their responsibility to pay for the damage. Likewise the man did not intend for his actions to cause harm, but even in death he still needs to pay for the damage his actions caused.

True but isn't that through insurance companies, and not personal bank accounts?

Even so, how often do the families of those drivers get sued?

Insurance companies do pay for car accidents, but only because people pay them to do so. Therefore the person who has insurance that pays for the damage done is in fact paying for the damage.

The family isn't being sued. The dead man's estate(aka all the money and stuff he owned) is being sued.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

If it was suicide, I'd be more understanding of the suing.
But it wasn't.
It was an accident, so the old woman can get lost. Unless she's gonna starve from paying hospital fees or some crap, she can get lost.
And even if she does get it, it should only be for hospital fees.

I'm glad you're not a judge then. The amount of sympathy is overwhelming..

 

[Buizel91]

But the thing is, you know for a fact this woman isn't just going to try to get money for medical bills, she'll try to get them for everything that they have and make up ten reasons to go along with that.

Really? Its a fact? Prove it! I don't think you actually know what fact means.

Snip

Okay, that one was pretty bad. Here's my problem though with drawing a comparison. In a case like this where the offending part is the dead, then the next bit to go to is the estate. Whilst the person who died in your case is an adult, the person in this case is a teenager who most likely had no property or significant amounts of money to his name. But if the man driving the car had no money, then the case would stop there because the man who caused the injury is now dead and can't work out any agreement. But in this case being discussed, the teenager's parents are being sued.

It's not just a morally wrong thing for me, I'm willing to get over that. It's also the thing of the guy's parents had nothing to do with their son's really stupid decision but are now being held responsible for it ://quote]

But then again, this wouldn't have happened if America's Health Care System wasn't so fucked.

Okay some more "facts":
1) The parents are NOT GETTING SUED! The only thing that can be taken are cash, including savings, investments and insurance payouts Ect. belonging to the son. Potentially she could take money from a ruling of fault from whatever corporate entity was running the train station, but that would be harder to prove.

2)If the man driving the car was killed, his insurance would probably be liable, there are very few jurisdictions in the first world where you can legally drive without insurance for specifically this scenario. If the man had no money, his insurance would pay. If he didn't have insurance or money it WOULD stop. BUT for that exact reason, "a teenager who most likely had no property or significant amounts of money to his name" would also be judgment proof, which probably means he HAD an insurance policy she is going after.

Pulling it down to the first point, how many times do you here of somebody getting into an accident of now fault of their own and just suing for medical expenses? Most people want large sums of compensation as well. And how large it can be is ridiculous some times. Like how those people who sue places like McDonalds because they spilt coffee on themselves and then say that there was no warning to say the coffee was hot. Albeit, these cases are a lot less serious but if you catch the general drift of how much people are willing to try and get out of a court case.

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500. Her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500. Her loss of income was approximately $5,000. This came to a total of approximately $18,000.

Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, that was when Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan to file a lawsuit.

Also not only was her original claim reasonable, its only ignorance of the case that makes people think the McD case was a frivolous lawsuit. People sighting that as an example need to take 60 seconds and google the case. McD was absolutely liable. If she had ingested the drink instead of spilling it her injuries would have been even more serious as she would have had 3rd degree burns in her mouth and throat. The coffee was at a completely unsafe temperature due to a really stupid McD policy which assumed you would drink the coffee with 2 creamers after 5-10 minutes and they wanted it piping hot at that time. As served, it would have seared anyone. It's pretty much the definition of negligance on McD's part.

Actually, it's not just cream that cools down coffee, it's pretty much everything. Cream, sugar, stirring, moving it around. There's so much you can do with it before you drink it, it's actually just about the right temperature. Plus, serve coffee are anything less than 80-90*c, if loses some of the flavour. It's really more about quality control of the drink than anything else.

I can't really sympathize with anyone with anybody who would complain that the coffee is too hot if they drank it straight, a second with the steam near your face or even just holding the cup should tell you if the drink is too hot. This woman was unfortunate in that she spilt it on cotton pants which absorbed it and caused third-degree burns to a fair bit of her lower body. But I myself think she was partly at fault with the accident for putting the coffee between her legs to pour in cream and sugar. It's a dangerous thing to do. I'd have suggested that she should have put in on a flat surface and poured it in there.

This^^, Also there was a case in London with the exact same circumstances. It was thrown out of court, so not every numbskull who sues wins thankfully. Coffee is made to be hot putting it between your legs without a lid on it is negligent behaviour.

Nice triple post.

As far as the McD case goes I don't understand how you're not getting it. Coffee which is served too hot to drink. They might as well have been serving lava or liquid nitrogen.

Spilling the coffee doesn't magically remove the fact that the coffee was served too hot to consume, which is the entire point of the lawsuit.

If we are to assume that is Coffee is as hot as "Liquid Nitrogen" as you put it (Obviously you were exaggerating) then answer me how the fuck she managed to pick up the bugger?

She could of at least had the common sense to blow it, and let it cool down, she clearly would have known it was to hot to drink! You don't just pick up a hot cup and think, "This cup is burning my hand...but fuck it lets drink it"!

 

[Shadowkire]

Nice triple post.

As far as the McD case goes I don't understand how you're not getting it. Coffee which is served too hot to drink. They might as well have been serving lava or liquid nitrogen.

Spilling the coffee doesn't magically remove the fact that the coffee was served too hot to consume, which is the entire point of the lawsuit.

If we are to assume that is Coffee is as hot as "Liquid Nitrogen" as you put it (Obviously you were exaggerating) then answer me how the fuck she managed to pick up the bugger?

She could of at least had the common sense to blow it, and let it cool down, she clearly would have known it was to hot to drink! You don't just pick up a hot cup and think, "This cup is burning my hand...but fuck it lets drink it"!

I would assume the cup came with a sleeve, which would keep a person from gauging the temperature of the coffee.

The lawsuit wasn't that the coffee was hot, but that is was 3rd degree burns hot: Normally boiling hot liquids are 2nd degree burn hot(blisters). The McDonald's coffee destroyed the skin in the woman's lap, she needed skin grafts. Nothing intend for consumption should be dispensed at that temperature.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

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.

Let's assume that the kinetic energy of a limb is not dissipated because of the relatively "short" range.

A limb going at 70mph has a velocity of roughly 31 meters per second.

Kinetic energy = 1/2 * m * v^2

Since it was a "sizeable chunk", let's assume 7kg

7/2 * 961 = 3363.5 joule


It's not "merely" fall into onto the ground because you lost your balance, it's a 58 year old woman taking over 3000 joule of energy from a 7kg chunk.

Also, if the chunk was 10-20kg the energy it carried would be even bigger.

Gotta put that in context though - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy#Typical_muzzle_energies_of_common_firearms_and_cartridges

and

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100311195546AAxSwDO
This link answers a question:

'A 88 kg fullback moving east with a speed of 5.0 m/s is tackled by a 98 kg opponent running north at 3.0 m/s.'

(b) (what is) the kinetic energy lost as a result of the collision(?)

If the calculations are correct: 'Energy lost --> Initial - Post = (1,541 J) - (755 J) = 786 J'

So that woman's getting hit by an impact that's four times that of two large males running into each other, and at that kind of speed of impact, she probably couldn't have reacted and she might not have even glanced in the right direction to get _any_ warning.

So, breaking some bones is hardly a surprise and at her age, lifelong complications can arise - if you're elderly, you don't want to fall even once, as after falling and breaking your hip once, typically leads to repeated falls and eventual disability.

It's pretty disappointing to see some people's attitudes on this forum. How'd you like your grandmother to hit by a blow like that with no financial recourse?

Shame about the kid, but it was a reckless thing to do, and shame about the family. It's a crappy situation, exacerbated by the inadequate/misfinanced health system in the US. Shame that powerful interests can whip up concerns about socialism and oppose moves by Barack Obama to oppose the excessively powerful position the health insurance companies find themselves in. You need collective bargaining to get better deals on health insurance - same principle with unions and payrates which are notoriously crappy in the US.

 

[Arakasi]

If it was suicide, I'd be more understanding of the suing.
But it wasn't.
It was an accident, so the old woman can get lost. Unless she's gonna starve from paying hospital fees or some crap, she can get lost.
And even if she does get it, it should only be for hospital fees.

I'm glad you're not a judge then. The amount of sympathy is overwhelming..

I sympathise more for the parents than the woman.

 

[Buizel91]

Nice triple post.

As far as the McD case goes I don't understand how you're not getting it. Coffee which is served too hot to drink. They might as well have been serving lava or liquid nitrogen.

Spilling the coffee doesn't magically remove the fact that the coffee was served too hot to consume, which is the entire point of the lawsuit.

If we are to assume that is Coffee is as hot as "Liquid Nitrogen" as you put it (Obviously you were exaggerating) then answer me how the fuck she managed to pick up the bugger?

She could of at least had the common sense to blow it, and let it cool down, she clearly would have known it was to hot to drink! You don't just pick up a hot cup and think, "This cup is burning my hand...but fuck it lets drink it"!

I would assume the cup came with a sleeve, which would keep a person from gauging the temperature of the coffee.

The lawsuit wasn't that the coffee was hot, but that is was 3rd degree burns hot: Normally boiling hot liquids are 2nd degree burn hot(blisters). The McDonald's coffee destroyed the skin in the woman's lap, she needed skin grafts. Nothing intend for consumption should be dispensed at that temperature.

Even if it did come with a sleeve, it wouldn't be able to make it any more holdable if it was that hot, i work at Showcase Cinema, and we use pretty much the same cups Mcdonalds use (obviously without the Mcdonald's label) and i can tell when our coffee machine has dispensed hotter water than normal.

It should of been obvious when she picked it up, although having given this thought, a little warning from the person who served her would of been nice...

 

[Terramax]

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.

Serious question, are you aware that when people sue, it isn't a case of 'I'm greedy, give me money!' (at least not all the time).

She's suing because not only was she injured initially, but of course this is going to affect her life for a while. Did the broken leg and wrist cause her time off work? Was it harder to do chores around the house? And what about emotional stress?

Even just bruising can cause problems. And it's worth noting this lady is 58 years old!

Having worked in injury claims, I know for a fact that an injury such as the ones listed can make an enormous change on someone's life for forseeable weeks/months. It's not right another person should suffer because of a mistake someone else made.

 

[Cyrus Hanley]

Snip

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500. Her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500. Her loss of income was approximately $5,000. This came to a total of approximately $18,000.

Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, that was when Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan to file a lawsuit.

Really? I still think it's a miracle she was offered any money. Though I checked her age. She was 79 years old at the time. Where was her loss of income coming from?

Either way, it was hot but I think the main problem in the case is that she wore pants that soaked it up. Combined with the fact that the coffee is kept really hot (for which I'll explain later in the post), it is pretty dangerous to spill it because it's the effect of leaving your hand in the cup.

Though I don't think it's helped in her favour because she did try to add the cream and sugar in the car with the cup between her legs. Parked up but it's the not the ideal location to try and do that sort of thing.

I think the best quote is for this also about a similar case in the UK that failed.

"If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald?s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 C and 60 C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 C and 95 C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 C and 60 C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled."

I don't know what issues 1 and 2 are but you see the general point. Coffee is kept hot because people like it hot and common sense is that you shouldn't spill it because it will scald you. Sad for the people who do but it's a risk that you take when you buy it.

I wasn't disputing the fact that fresh coffee is hot, I was just disputing your claim that people sue McDonald's for millions because they spilt coffee on themselves.