Dead Teen Sued for Flying Body Parts

[phantasmalWordsmith]

Well...I'm not sure what to say. A person who was still young and had so much to live for (One can hope) is torn apart and one middle aged woman wants... I'm not even sure I can finish that sentence.

I personally think this woman should be ashamed of herself

 

[Astoria]

Really? Like seriously really? These people just lost a son and you want to sue them because his body hit you? People just do not give a shit about anything but money anymore.

 

[AngryBritishAce]

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.

You also need to think how big they were and how fast the body parts were going, I mean a torso flying at you at 50mph would knock you back with some force :/ And she could of broke her wrist by outstretching her arm to deflect it

 

[Poomermon]

I think the comparison between a reckless driver injuring someone while dying in a crash and this case is a valid one. Both are caused by reckless behaviour and the old lady was clearly the innocent victim here. It is not reasonable to expect her to pay for the medical aid just because the kid is now dead. I don't know if the kid had any wealth in his name but if he did that should go primary to the old lady's hospital bills.

 

[Vegosiux]

I don't know, in my country a dead person cannot be prosecuted, because they cannot defend themselves. Which can actually lead to interestingly controversial stuff like overturning a treason verdict from WW2 with no chance to give the guy another trial cause he's well, dead. But that's another story, I'm derailing.

All I mean to say, where I live, you can't sue a dead person.

 

[lunavixen]

i can't properly wrap my head around this, this is just absurd in so many ways, what do you all mean by expensive medical bills? Isn't there a public health system (i.e. bulk-billing then being covered by a system like Medicare) in America?

That poor family just lost their son and now they are being dragged to court because he can't be?

The words i would like to use in this instance, i can't use on a public forum.

 

[Alexlion]

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.

If this were an adult id agree, but an 18 year old isnt going to have much of an estate and likely hood is the parents will have to pay, or sell all of the posessions of their dead recently dead son so his estate can pay, its a little cold.

And ofc the obligatory "only in america" and "free health care ftw".

 

[Dastardly]

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?

The level of reading comprehension in this thread is just... abominable, really. Here's a succinct list of the relevant facts in this case.

1. Not a "boy." 18 is an adult. Use of the words "boy" and "teen" are just for shock value.

2. Trains are large and loud, and one expects them at train tracks or stations. Ergo, running out onto the tracks without looking is reckless. No, he didn't think ahead properly -- that's what reckless means.

3. This woman wasn't just inconveneienced by this. She was injured. Bones were broken by the impact (and likely subsequent fall). Not only is there the pain and discomfort, there's always a chance (at her age) that things will never fully heal, meaning decreased mobility. And then you have the medical bills for treatment, prescriptions, and physical therapy. It was not her recklessness that led to her injuries, so it's only right that she should be allowed to demand help from the man's estate.

4. She isn't suing the dead man. You can't sue a dead man. You can, however, sue the estate of the dead man -- that means she is suing for a portion of what the man left behind, in order to help her pay for all the care she'll need for injuries sustained due to his negligence.

5. Pity isn't an all-or-nothing game. Yeah, it's sad this guy died. Yeah, our hearts go out to his family, of course. That doesn't mean all pity for all other parties is hereby cancelled -- he died, so he "wins" the Pity. This woman has to keep living with these injuries and bills, and that deserves some consideration, too.

 

[Vegosiux]

2. Trains are large and loud, and one expects them at train tracks or stations. Ergo, running out onto the tracks without looking is reckless. No, he didn't think ahead properly -- that's what reckless means.

They're not exactly loud. I mean, you hear them when they pass, but relying only on your ears to know when one's coming isn't exactly a bright idea.

 

[The Human Torch]

Really? Like seriously really? These people just lost a son and you want to sue them because his body hit you? People just do not give a shit about anything but money anymore.

Nobody gives a shit about money, until they need it. In this case: medical bills, which can run rampant in America.

 

[manic_depressive13]

i can't properly wrap my head around this, this is just absurd in so many ways, what do you all mean by expensive medical bills? Isn't there a public health system (i.e. bulk-billing then being covered by a system like Medicare) in America?

No, there isn't. America is retarded. If you don't have private health insurance in America you're fucked. If this happened in any other country I would be horrified and disgusted that she chose to sue, but it is unfair that she should have to pay through the nose for injuries that were no fault of her own. They do have something called "Medicaid" but you have to apply for it and there are certain criteria to be eligible including earning below a particular income. Their "Medicare" is for people over 65 or people with specific illnesses or disabilities.

Reading the whole article, what the hell is with people walking on train tracks over there? Can't they see a train is coming? What a bunch of dumbasses.

 

[Vivi22]

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...

Thank you. If you hadn't said something about that terrible analogy I was going to. You just saved me the trouble.

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.

In this case, no, the court shouldn't say no you can't sue. The kid was negligent, it resulted in injury to a third party and she is entitled to compensation for that. Yeah he died and that's unfortunate, but it doesn't absolve him or his estate of the responsibility for those damages.

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?

Such as? Like it or not, she's entitled to compensation and the courts are there specifically for the purpose of determining whether the guy was responsible and how much he was liable for in damages to the woman. That is the courts function in matters like this. The fact that they are letting her case go forward shows that the court system is actually functioning the way it was intended to here, and more to the point, there is no other recourse for her.

Well, maybe third party arbitration, but that's generally something that only large companies force you to sign your way into so they can more easily get the result they want since they pay the arbitrator. For regular folks the courts handle this stuff.

 

[Lt_Bromhead]

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'm with ravensheart on this one.

As insensitive as it might be, in cases like this one has to remove morality from the equation.
Okay, the lad got torn to ribbons. It's sad and gruesome. BUT running in front of a train is, and please don't shoot me here, not just a dumb thing to do but a bit insensitive in itself. Clarkson got into a spot of bother for making a comment along these lines recently, but whilst he was only joking for comedic effect, I think there was (an admittedly sick and twisted) ring of truth to it.

Jumping in front of a train or bus is a somewhat inconsiderate suicide. I KNOW suicidal types are often at the end of their tether, but - to keep it short and to the point - it's a horrible thing for the passengers on the transport to deal with, let alone the driver himself. How do you think he'll feel after squashing another person into a fine paste? (Especially in this case, where it sounds like the train driver will have had bits of teenager splattered all over his windscreen)
It does also pose a high risk to other people's safety as well. If you ran in front of a bus, the driver might lose control, spin off the road and end up flattening a couple of bystanders and other cars. Also imagine that was a school bus. Dead kiddies, dead bystanders and thousands of pounds worth of property damage.

Call me insensitive but negligence and lack of forethought can do a lot more than winding up with one splatted teenager...

 

[Susurrus]

SNIP

That's a false comparison you're making there. If crashing a car due to a mistake is a decision, then running across tracks is also a decision. In the case of crashing the car, clearly that was an unintended side-effect of a misjudged move. Equally, getting hit by a train whilst crossing tracks is ALSO an unintended side-effect of a misjudged move. They're exactly the same, except one is more usual than the other.

 

[Poomermon]

Also, is it reasonable then to go to the boy's family and say "Your kid is dead, with bodyparts scattered all over the place. Now I claim millions in damages from you because I'm a fat unhealthy slob who breaks everything when merely falling down".

Because quite frankly, that's the other side of the story in this matter.

The old lady is not suing the parents. She is suing the dead kid's estate. That means everything the kid owns (which is probably not that much) have to be accounted for and divided between debtors (the old lady and maybe others) before parents can claim the inheritance. The dead kid's parents don't have to pay anything from their own pocket even if the kid's wealth is not enough to cover the medical aid.

 

[rutger5000]

Now I'm no expert but as far as I'm concerned the US has terrible insurance policies and suing someone for money is part of the culture. The boy was neglectant and caused an accident, that accident resulted in his death but also the injury of that 56 year old woman. Someone has to pay for those medical bills and compensate her for the time her wounds need to heal, and if that woman is not insured then the boy's family ought to pay.

 

[Woodsey]

5. Pity isn't an all-or-nothing game. Yeah, it's sad this guy died. Yeah, our hearts go out to his family, of course. That doesn't mean all pity for all other parties is hereby cancelled -- he died, so he "wins" the Pity. This woman has to keep living with these injuries and bills, and that deserves some consideration, too.

Pff, if I can't have all of the pity then its no fun.

OT: My thoughts on the person rather depend on whether they're suing because the medical bills are astronomical (likely; but hey, just so long as those dirty fucking socialists don't get any kind of health care reform through, am I right?), or because they want extra dolla, and the medical bills don't really bother them.