Dead Teen Sued for Flying Body Parts

[Cyrus Hanley]

....

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?

Your reading comprehension is in need of improvement.

1. The body was flung by the train onto a platform with waiting passengers, one of them being Gayane Zokhrabov.

2. Who said that she was looking in the direction of the flying body? You certainly don't know that.

Read before you post next time.

 

[Stalydan]

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.

However, did you see the amount that was awarded to her? At one point (if the two parties hadn't have settled outside of the court), she would have got $2.7 million O__o That's what I call excessive. However, the parties settled on an undisclosed amount but it was less than $600,000. I still think that's a lot for most accident claims but that's excessive for spilling coffee. Apparently, it was ruled that McD's were 80% responsible and Liebeck was 20%. Honestly, if you're going to try pouring stuff into a hot cup of coffee between your legs, I think you're so much more than 20% liable for your accident!

 

[Dastardly]

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.

I... what?

So I'm clear here, as a reader on the side of this exchange, we're now blaming the women for getting broken bones? You seriously believe people can't get broken bones from simple falls? And what's more, from "simple" falls incurred by flying torsos?

Physicists would disagree, because they understand the kind of energy being dealt with here. Doctors would disagree, because they understand how bones work.

What if this woman has a genetic predisposition to early osteoporosis? And what if she doesn't even know that? Even then, you demonstrate some misunderstandings about osteoporosis. Senile osteoporosis occurs in people usually over 70. But post-menopausal osteoporosis occurs (as expected) post-menopause. Menopause can begin in women as young as 40.

But even the healthiest person in the world, if knocked to the ground by a flying torso, can suffer pretty bad breaks if they just happen to be hit or to hit the ground in the wrong way. Really might want to consider altering your assessment that this is somehow the woman's fault...

 

[Poomermon]

Because the drunk driver was knowingly ingesting alcohol, he was drunk, unaware of his faculties via his own choosing rather than dead.

Let's change that to reckless driving. How about if that driver driving over the speed limit while drinking soda and using a cellphone at same time crashed against a brick wall killing himself. Then a tire from his car flies from the wreckage and hits a bystander causing her a serious injury. Do you think the driver is responsible for the injury in that case? If so how does this differ from the case we are discussing? Do you think if the driver has grieving parents he (aka the estate) does not have to pay for the damage he caused to the bystander?

dead people have very little control over whether of not their dismembered limbs smash into people.

But they do have control over whether or not they engage in activities that can cause injuries to themselves and others. In this case it was clearly reckless behaviour to cross over the train tracks and he should have known better.

For another argument try to the people who jumped out of the twin towers, they knew they would die if they hit the ground, if they hit someone else on the ground is it right to sue their estate.

But they did not cause the fire and therefore were ultimately not responsible for possible injuries.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

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:<

This is how I feel. Honestly, I can't imagine how I would feel if this happened to my sister and I had to be in court after the funeral over the circumstances of her death. Not that it would happen but still.

 

[sabercrusader]

Um wait. Let me read the title then the first post again. A woman is suing a DEAD TEENAGER because she happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time when he died. A part of his body hit her and caused her to break a wrist and a leg. You know what I say to that? Quit whining. Put yourself in that boy's parent's and friend's shoes. That boy's parents and friends just lost someone they loved and cared deeply about, and you want to sue? This is a prime example of what the world has come to apparently. Not even the courtesy to let something bad that happened to you slide by when another family is mourning.

 

[Rule Britannia]

sueing dead people is just as bad as hitting disabled people... Really, can people not show some respect, you broke your wrist? he fucking DIED...


CAPTCHA: rturepu
u r a poo

 

[Steinar Valsson]

As someone not from the States, I have always wandered how the U.S judicial system works... A woman was sued by a burgler that broke his hand trying to rob her, he won. It's the frivolous lawsuits buisness. People claiming this and that for money.

I understand the woman that sued from the point of view that she really got injured and the boy didn't exactly do the smartest thing... but she will try to sue the estate (parents since he was not 18) for so much more then she deserves and now the parents will maybe have to pay loads of money on top of their sons death. It's just not right.

 

[Shadowkire]

As someone not from the States, I have always wandered how the U.S judicial system works... A woman was sued by a burgler that broke his hand trying to rob her, he won. It's the frivolous lawsuits buisness. People claiming this and that for money.

I understand the woman that sued from the point of view that she really got injured and the boy didn't exactly do the smartest thing... but she will try to sue the estate (parents since he was not 18) for so much more then she deserves and now the parents will maybe have to pay loads of money on top of their sons death. It's just not right.

1. The story of a burglar suing after being injured in the middle of a burglary is a lie, google it. You won't find an actual case like that, you may find some reports of people who tried, but none even make it into the court room.

2. He was 18, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-train-fatality-suit-20111229,0,1641941.story.

3. Unless you think she deserves $0, how did you come to the conclusion the lady would seek any more than what would cover her medical bills and loss of income?

 

[asinann]

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.

If your child is stupid enough to do something that it is obvious he shouldn't do (crossing train tacks when there are oncoming trains) and chunks of him hit me, break my wrist and leg making it so that I can not work (I don't have a nice cushy desk job) you are damn right I'm going to sue the estate to cover my medical bills and living expenses until the injury that your child cause, that are no fault of my own, heal completely.

 

[ElPatron]

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.'

I was merely pointing out how the velocity of the body parts had a huge influence on the kinetic energy a body carries.

In fact, the muzzle velocity of firearms is somewhat unrelated. We are talking about a transfer due to a collision, "terminal ballistics" are somewhat more complicated than high-school physics because they are not a collision.

I did not use the momentum in my calculations, nor the dissipated energy because I did not have any way to calculate the final speed of the woman.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

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.

Missed the point, like I said, it was the exact same circumstances with the London case. Still threw the case out based on the fact that the plantiff could`ve waited a few minutes for the drink to cool down as people generally do.

Here`s the case name along with the judge`s ruling statement:

Bogle v. McDonald?s Restaurants Ltd.
"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."

Also, like I said she put the coffee between her legs and then open it. Not too smart to do. She could have used a flat surface to hold the coffee.