Dead Teen Sued - Guess Why

[MadBomr101]

Read it here - Dead Teen Sued for Hitting Woman with His Flying Body Parts

You read that right. 

In a Nutshell:  A woman is suing the estate of a dead teenager after she was hit by a bloody chunk of his body after he failed to outrun a train, was struck, and his body exploded from the impact sending the viscera flying in all directions.  The writer seems to feel passionately that this action is reprehensible and the woman should be ashamed of herself.  Given the circumstances of this incident, I disagree.  Read the article and let's see what you think.

Discuss.

[Whitney]

what is she hoping to gain from this lawsuit?

Money to cover her injuries, perhaps.  She's 58 and it broke both her leg and her wrist and it's very likely that she'll have trouble with those parts of her body the rest of her life since the older you get the harder it is to heal properly. Yes, it is sad that the boy did something stupid and died from it. But, it's not right to demonize a woman who was injured by minding her own business standing on the train platform just because she decides to seek compensation.  Plus, for all we know she has zero medical coverage and has already been slapped with bills that she'll have to pay off the rest of her life if she doesn't win the lawsuit.  Frankly, I hope she gets more than enough compensation to cover the therapy she'll probably need from the incident and backlash from people who can't think the situation through.

I have a friend who lost his son under similar circumstances so I can also understand how a lawsuit would cause additional grief....but it's just not right to cause further suffering by not helping out the women; it's not like she tripped the boy then sued for damages.

[MadBomr101]

what is she hoping to gain from this lawsuit?

Money to cover her injuries, perhaps.  She's 58 and it broke both her leg and her wrist and it's very likely that she'll have trouble with those parts of her body the rest of her life since the older you get the harder it is to heal properly. Yes, it is sad that the boy did something stupid and died from it. But, it's not right to demonize a woman who was injured by minding her own business standing on the train platform just because she decides to seek compensation.  Plus, for all we know she has zero medical coverage and has already been slapped with bills that she'll have to pay off the rest of her life if she doesn't win the lawsuit.  Frankly, I hope she gets more than enough compensation to cover the therapy she'll probably need from the incident and backlash from people who can't think the situation through.

I have a friend who lost his son under similar circumstances so I can also understand how a lawsuit would cause additional grief....but it's just not right to cause further suffering by not helping out the women; it's not like she tripped the boy then sued for damages.

All valid reasons and pretty much exactly what I came up with which led me to disagree.  The writer's knee-jerk distaste for the lawsuit is understandable but only on the surface.  Once you get into the details it becomes clear that this woman is a victim of the dead teenager's stupidity.  I see no reason on earth why the boy's estate shouldn't compenate her for her injuries. 

The writer is being foolish.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Agree.. She was injured as a result of his negligence, and an appeals court ruled in her favor.... Sounds legit, albeit macabre.

[Sweetdeath]

The Woman has all the right in the world. I'm sorry, but I cannot stand the selfishness of some people. Even if she wasn't badly injured, she was probably traumatized by being harmed by a freaking piece of body!!

Seriously, kill yourself at home with a bottle of pills and a razor blade, asshole.

I wanna hug that woman.

[Tank]

The Woman has all the right in the world. I'm sorry, but I cannot stand the selfishness of some people. Even if she wasn't badly injured, she was probably traumatized by being harmed by a freaking piece of body!!

Seriously, kill yourself at home with a bottle of pills and a razor blade, asshole.

I wanna hug that woman.

He didn't commit suicide, it was an accident.

[The Magic Pudding]

Not many teenagers would leave an estate worth suing.

[Tank]

Not many teenagers would leave an estate worth suing.

I would agree with this. It makes little sense to sue as the cost/benefit in this case would normally be very poor.

[Siz]

what is she hoping to gain from this lawsuit?

Money to cover her injuries, perhaps.  She's 58 and it broke both her leg and her wrist and it's very likely that she'll have trouble with those parts of her body the rest of her life since the older you get the harder it is to heal properly. Yes, it is sad that the boy did something stupid and died froim it. But, it's not right to demonize a woman who was injured by minding her own business standing on the train platform just because she decides to seek compensation.  Plus, for all we know she has zero medical coverage and has already been slapped with bills that she'll have to pay off the rest of her life if she doesn't win the lawsuit.  Frankly, I hope she gets more than enough compensation to cover the therapy she'll probably need from the incident and backlash from people who can't think the situation through.

Agreed. Why the hell not? If the boy had lived, and it was the boys' bag (or whatever) that hit her there'd not be the same outcry. What's the difference?

I'm both surprised and pleased at the consensus here. Glad to see some reason - not the usual bleeding-heart, leftism that often pervades this forum.
...And all those people delayed by train stoppages, and the police time, and the emergency services, etc...etc...  Fucking dufus!

I'm sorry for your loss, Mrs Dufus, but we've gotta protect ourselves against stupidity and be rightfully recompensed. Even if the estate is small, this poor, becrippled woman has a sound case and I back her all the way - those medical bills aren't going to be brushed aside in the interests of solemn respect for the deceased. Hopefully the situation will serve in some way to help eradicate stupidity. If this was an 'accident', I'd have a different view, but (as was stated) this was forseeable, it's got to be just another compensation case.

I remember a case in the UK where a train driver successfully sued the estate of a person that jumped in front of the train he was driving. Now there's tough justice!

[Sandra Craft]

Not many teenagers would leave an estate worth suing.

I would agree with this. It makes little sense to sue as the cost/benefit in this case would normally be very poor.

I wondered about that too -- unless the kid was rich, was a trust fund baby or some such, she isn't going to get much.  Since the kid was 18 and legally an adult, and therefore no longer the responsibility of his parents, I suppose she couldn't sue them.  A lawyer had to have suggested her course of action, I'd love to hear the reasoning behind it.

As far as the ethics of it, as horrible as it is, it's hardly different than a drunk 18-yr old getting behind the wheel and causing an accident that kills him and injures someone else.  In fact, the only real difference is that the train scenerio is even more of a forgone conclusion than the drunk driving scenerio.  It's sad that the kid died but that woman has serious injuries to pay for and in this country that can add up even with insurance, and she may be one of the many people who's uninsured.  However it has to be worked out, I say the kid's family should take responsibility for her medical bills.

[The Magic Pudding]

However it has to be worked out, I say the kid's family should take responsibility for her medical bills.

That seems a bit harsh especially if the kid is eighteen.  I'm not sure how to apportion the blame for a problem kid between society and parents.  The kid may come into contact with drugs and bullies at a public school.  Parents aren't allowed to act like medieval masters of their kids.

The US and Aus seem to treat this differently.

US

Suppose a ten-year-old boy sees another boy riding his bicycle and thinks it would be "funny" to push him over. So the ten-year-old pushes the bicyclist over and he suffers serious injuries. Are the parents liable for the actions of their ten-year-old son?

In most states, parents are liable only for the intentional wrongful acts of their children, and there is usually a dollar amount on this, such as $10,000 or $15,000. Now suppose that instead of deliberately hurting the bicyclist, the boy runs into the path in front of him, causing the bicyclist to lose his or her balance, fall off the bike, and sustain injuries.

Are the parents liable for the carelessness (negligence) of their child? In most states the answer to this question is no. While the parents are liable up to a certain amount
of money for the deliberate acts of their minor children, they are not usually liable for the negligent acts of their children that cause injury. One main exception to this rule is that, if the child is a teenager driving the family car on a family errand or with the express or implied consent of the parents ("permissive user"), the parents are liable for all injuries and property damage caused by their child's negligence should he or she be a fault and get into an accident.

Aus

Normally parents are not liable for wrongs committed by their children. However, they may be liable for a wrong committed if:

    the child was acting as their agent,
    the child was acting with the parent's authority, or
    where it is found that a parent has not exercised proper control or supervision over the child

For example, in the case described above of the 12 year old boy who threw the dart, the boy's father was not found to be liable, even though he had provided the boy with the dart. The court found that the boy was old enough to handle a dart and could reasonably have been expected to do so safely; the eventual misuse of the dart was not reasonably foreseeable as far as the father was concerned. This result would have been different if the child had been younger or if the father had provided the child with a gun. If a parent knows their child is prone to behave in a way which could endanger others, then the parent may have some degree of liability.

I like the sound of the New Zealand's Accident Compensation Scheme.

Eligibility for injury cover for everyone in New Zealand

Everyone in New Zealand is eligible for comprehensive injury cover:

    no matter what you're doing or where you are when you're injured – driving, playing sport, at home, at work.
    no matter how the injury happened, even if you did something yourself to contribute to it.
    no matter what age you are or whether you're working – you might be retired, a child, on a benefit or studying.

What injuries am I covered for?

Wounds, lacerations, sprains, strains, fractures, dislocations and work-related injuries such as hearing loss may all be covered. Most physical injuries are covered if they're caused by:

    an accident
    a condition that comes on gradually because of your work (gradual process)
    medical treatment
    sexual assault or abuse

[Sweetdeath]

Wow,  go New Zealand!!

[Buddy]

Heh, I read this to my history class and I was the only one who sided with the old lady. I still can't get over how emotionally scarred she might be. I have an extreme phobia of severed limbs, so if that happened to me I would probably drop dead of fright. XD

[DeterminedJuliet]

Wow, New Zealand's coverage seems like such a good idea.

I don't even know what the laws are like in Canada regarding this. Since medical expenses aren't really an issue, there don't tend to be as many lawsuits with regards to injuries and, if there are, there is practically zero coverage of them in the media.

Upon some googling, it looks like injury cases in Canada either fall under "intentional" injury (like assault), "negligence" or "tort". It looks like this case would most likely fall under tort law, and, as best I can see, in Canada, there would be no case for suing the parents of the person who died unless the parents were directly involved in the incident.

"Prima facie a parent is not liable for a tort committed by his child."

So, hypothetically, unless this 18 year old was independently wealthy, the person suing would be pretty out of luck.
You know, if this happened in Canada.

[Sweetdeath]

Heh, I read this to my history class and I was the only one who sided with the old lady. I still can't get over how emotionally scarred she might be. I have an extreme phobia of severed limbs, so if that happened to me I would probably drop dead of fright. XD

I do too ;___; I can't even imagine it.