Dead Teen Sued for Flying Body Parts

[Susurrus]

SNIP

So, reasonably foreseeable in law has a particular meaning, and a particular way of interpreting.

Basically, what this is saying that, though he judged that his action would be successful, it is reasonably foreseeable that it would not be successful (dodging a train), or that when running along train tracks it is reasonably foreseeable that he would get hit by a train. What is isn't is a risk assessment of the current action - if you think "Ah there's no way that train will hit me, it's going too slow", and then it's actually not, or if you think "I can't see a train, therefore I will be fine" - both are examples of risk assessment. It's the difference between seeing that there might be a risk, and discounting a risk because you think its a small one. If you see the risk, then its probable that its reasonably foreseeable. You may not be able to see a train, but it is reasonably foreseeable that you might have missed it, or that a train might be travelling too fast for you to have adequate warning.

When crossing tracks, it is reasonably foreseeable that you might get hit by a train. There are all sorts of warnings about not walking on train tracks, not crossing at points which are not designated as crossing points etc. An example of what might not be reasonably foreseeable is running along a road next to the train, and suddenly the train derails and crashes straight into your car. Noone factors that into the safety of driving alongside a road.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

Legally speaking, it doesn't really matter how "bothered" she is by the bills. If the bills (medical, transportation, lost wages, etc.) amount to ten bucks, she should be able to sue for the ten bucks -- whether or not she can afford it herself. If a victim chooses not to sue, that's their right... but I don't think they should ever feel obligated to bear undeserved responsibility just because the situation is sad.

 

[theskadudeguy]

It seems a bit silly, yes. But I don't you guys in the US have to pay for hospitals and stuff?

I know you shouldn't speak ill of the dead, but what sort of idiot crosses a rail track when a train is coming anyway? Even if I can't see a train I won't cross the physical track its just common sense...

I think the court did the right thing the phrase "The court ruled that the boy's death was "reasonably foreseeable" and that his estate can be held responsible for his negligence." says it all

 

[silasbufu]

I think it somewhat makes sense, because the guy was reckless.

Also, she's suing the family if I'm not mistaken, not the dead boy so it's not that absurd. I'm sure we're talking about hospital payments and maybe some moral damage, not millions like some here are grossly exagerating.

 

[wooty]

Seems just like a case of wrong place wrong time for this woman, no reason to sue. But hey, the way the world is going now it doesnt wholely surprise me, suing each other seems like the new ages version of happy slapping.

 

[SoetSout]

uhm yea, some of you need to learn a bit of physics and how easily an unprepared human can get hurt.

70 MPH, enough to tear his body in pieces.
those body parts were moving easily at 50-60 MPH, with the added weight of atleast 10 KG a piece.

so put it this way.

take 5 2l bottles, cover it in bubble-wrap(for soft feeling)

and drop it from 5-6 stories building, try to catch it... thats the force that hit her.
(give or take a few extra calculations),

i can see healthy young adult breaking limbs from that force, especially if unprepared.


i might know my science but not that well my law.
but from what i understand she can only get money from stuff HE owned. the parents just have to handle the case. The parents arent giving money out of their own pocket. or am i wrong?

 

[AngloDoom]

It's times like this I appreciate the healthcare system of my country. Suing a dead person because they splattered all over you is, indeed, perfectly logical if it caused you harm and you usually would pay for it. If she didn't have to pay it then she wouldn't have to sue.

I don't really blame the woman, since she'd have to pay for something that's not her fault, but it really does make me tentative about wanting to move to a country without the NHS.

 

[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.

Legally speaking, it doesn't really matter how "bothered" she is by the bills. If the bills (medical, transportation, lost wages, etc.) amount to ten bucks, she should be able to sue for the ten bucks -- whether or not she can afford it herself. If a victim chooses not to sue, that's their right... but I don't think they should ever feel obligated to bear undeserved responsibility just because the situation is sad.

I was speaking from a purely opinion-based position, nothing legal.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

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.

speaking of reading comprehension, the quote you used does not include any instance of the word "boy". As for the word "teen", it's perfectly valid to use it to refer to an eighTEEN year old.

"teen" means 13-19, it doesn't stop because of age of majority.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

I have to agree, death or no death it was still a stupid needless death that caused more than one set of injuries. Not to mention mental anguish of any near by observers.

 

[LordFisheh]

This is what happens when you force people to pay for the privilege of not being left to bleed out in the street. Money has to come from somewhere, and if you don't have any then you do what you can.

 

[Irridium]

I'm sorry, I can't really feel sympathy for the 18 year old ADULT in this situation. How the fuck do you get hit by a train on accident? It's a damn train, it's on tracks. Just stay off the damn things, and you're good. It's not like it ambushes you out of the bushes or anything.

This guy's insane reckless behavior caused this women insane amounts of pain. I don't fault her at all for wanting to be compensated to help pay for her medical bills.

 

[tzimize]

Oh god is this funny . Sneaky train tears boy apart and then he gets sued by a woman injured by his bodyparts!

If there would be any way to see his reaction to this.

I have to go with this guy.

This story is just too absurd. A reaction from the beyond would be...priceless.

 

[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?

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.

wow, that's a really stupid system

 

[Cyrus Hanley]

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.

The moral of the story is don't run across railway tracks without looking both ways, especially if it's pouring rain.

The train was going at 70 mph and Hiroyuki Joho's body was launched 100 feet on to the station platform. Milk or no milk, there would have been injuries.

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."

A better question would be, "What the hell was wrong with the guy?"

He was running across railway tracks in pouring rain. Forgetting about the incoming train and Gayane Zokhrabov, he was one slip away from falling and knocking his head on the ground. And then getting run over by a train.

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."

What the hell is wrong with you?

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

I think that you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking that Gayane Zokhrabov should be ashamed of herself. It's not her fault she was struck by a flying body while waiting for the train and subsequently injured. She's well within her right to sue the man's estate for compensation.

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.

She's 58 years old. She broke her wrist and leg when Joho's body hit her and knocked her to the platform. She also takes the train to work. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that she's not wealthy enough to cover the medical expenses on her own without insurance and compensation.

Not everyone is Rich Uncle Pennybags.

 

[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.