Read it here - Dead Teen Sued for Hitting Woman with His Flying Body Parts (http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/130874/dead_teen_sued_by_victim)
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.
Quotewhat 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.
Quote from: Whitney on January 05, 2012, 01:28:42 AM
Quotewhat 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.
Agree.. She was injured as a result of his negligence, and an appeals court ruled in her favor.... Sounds legit, albeit macabre.
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.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 05, 2012, 07:22:40 AM
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.
Not many teenagers would leave an estate worth suing.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 05, 2012, 08:47:25 AM
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.
Quote from: Whitney on January 05, 2012, 01:28:42 AM
Quotewhat 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!
Quote from: Tank on January 05, 2012, 08:51:48 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 05, 2012, 08:47:25 AM
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.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 05, 2012, 12:16:41 PMHowever 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
QuoteSuppose a ten-year-old boy sees another boy (http://www.rezat.com/2011/03/parents-liability-for-childrens-actions-torts/) 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
QuoteNormally parents are not liable for wrongs committed by their children. (http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch05s01s08.php)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.
QuoteEligibility for injury cover for everyone in New Zealand
(http://www.acc.co.nz/making-a-claim/am-i-covered/index.htm)
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
Wow, go New Zealand!!
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
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.
Quote from: Budhorse4 on January 05, 2012, 03:45:00 PM
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.
Unanimous in favor of the old lady. Not one dissenting opinion even among the Xians. I'm pleasantly surprised. This may sound cold but I see this as natural selection in action. If this kid was so stupid as to get himself run over by a freakin' train then we, as a species, are btter off without him.
Just my $0.02
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 05, 2012, 07:42:55 PM
Unanimous in favor of the old lady. Not one dissenting opinion even among the Xians. I'm pleasantly surprised. This may sound cold but I see this as natural selection in action. If this kid was so stupid as to get himself run over by a freakin' train then we, as a species, are btter off without him.
Just my $0.02
Actual I didn't express an opinion one way or the other; so that would be one abstention ;D
I feel a trip to the 'Darwin Awards' coming on :D
Quote from: Tank on January 05, 2012, 07:47:25 PM
I feel a trip to the 'Darwin Awards' coming on :D
Heeerre's your sign.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 05, 2012, 07:42:55 PM
Not one dissenting opinion even among the Xians.
What is this supposed to mean exactly?
This particular Xian happens to side with the lady.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 08:01:05 PM
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 05, 2012, 07:42:55 PM
Not one dissenting opinion even among the Xians.
What is this supposed to mean exactly?
This particular Xian happens to side with the lady.
That's what I mean. I kinda expected the Xians to find the lawsuit distasteful not unlike the writer did. I'm pleasantly surprised.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 05, 2012, 08:05:36 PM
That's what I mean. I kinda expected the Xians to find the lawsuit distasteful not unlike the writer did. I'm pleasantly surprised.
I hardly represent Christianity at large... :)
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 05, 2012, 07:42:55 PM
If this kid was so stupid as to get himself run over by a freakin' train
Just a note that I'm surprised that most men make it to 25 with all the dumb stuff they do ;D
Quote from: Whitney on January 05, 2012, 10:36:49 PM
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 05, 2012, 07:42:55 PM
If this kid was so stupid as to get himself run over by a freakin' train
Just a note that I'm surprised that most men make it to 25 with all the dumb stuff they do ;D
Make a note ladies/females/women (take your pick or add your own collective nown) do not get into a long term relationship with males under 26!
BWAHAHA! Seriously?! (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdownloadpolitics.com%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Frofl3.gif&hash=0d73d02c0836c4ae6e72b5bed7b23b26a2f2dfcc)
I wonder if she gets awarded his PS3 or something
Quote from: Tank on January 05, 2012, 10:40:35 PM
Make a note ladies/females/women (take your pick or add your own collective nown) do not get into a long term relationship with males under 26!
According to 96% of father figures, the correct phrase would be don't get into a relationship until you're 50.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 05, 2012, 09:13:08 PM
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 05, 2012, 08:05:36 PM
That's what I mean. I kinda expected the Xians to find the lawsuit distasteful not unlike the writer did. I'm pleasantly surprised.
I hardly represent Christianity at large... :)
Around here you do. If you want less responsibility you need to get a few more of your people in here to share the burden. ;D
Quote from: Whitney on January 05, 2012, 10:36:49 PM
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 05, 2012, 07:42:55 PM
If this kid was so stupid as to get himself run over by a freakin' train
Just a note that I'm surprised that most men make it to 25 with all the dumb stuff they do ;D
Yes, becuz, as we all know, women are so balanced and reasonable. ;)
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 05, 2012, 11:57:40 PM
Quote from: Whitney on January 05, 2012, 10:36:49 PM
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 05, 2012, 07:42:55 PM
If this kid was so stupid as to get himself run over by a freakin' train
Just a note that I'm surprised that most men make it to 25 with all the dumb stuff they do ;D
Yes, becuz, as we all know, women are so balanced and reasonable. ;)
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on January 05, 2012, 03:54:54 PM
So, hypothetically, unless this 18 year old was independently wealthy, the person suing would be pretty out of luck.
I was thinking about this and I think I get the logic behind suing an 18 yr old's estate. They can't sue him because he's dead, and presumably they can't sue his parents because he was a legal adult and they're no longer liable for him. But I think if they sue his estate, and it can't pay, then the debt has to be paid by his next of kin -- i.e., the parents. Maybe the forum's lawyer can give us his take on it when he comes back from Costa Rica.
Quote from: Budhorse4 on January 05, 2012, 11:15:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 05, 2012, 10:40:35 PM
Make a note ladies/females/women (take your pick or add your own collective nown) do not get into a long term relationship with males under 26!
According to 96% of father figures, the correct phrase would be don't get into a relationship until you're 50.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg517.imageshack.us%2Fimg517%2F6655%2Fpmslsu0.gif&hash=864936626eaf8fd08f72c935dec3770cf5cd5bb5)
I think I just got owned!
Quote from: Tank on January 06, 2012, 08:35:13 AM
Quote from: Budhorse4 on January 05, 2012, 11:15:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 05, 2012, 10:40:35 PM
Make a note ladies/females/women (take your pick or add your own collective nown) do not get into a long term relationship with males under 26!
According to 96% of father figures, the correct phrase would be don't get into a relationship until you're 50.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg517.imageshack.us%2Fimg517%2F6655%2Fpmslsu0.gif&hash=864936626eaf8fd08f72c935dec3770cf5cd5bb5)
I think I just got owned!
Just speaking from experience! :D
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 06, 2012, 01:05:27 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on January 05, 2012, 03:54:54 PM
So, hypothetically, unless this 18 year old was independently wealthy, the person suing would be pretty out of luck.
I was thinking about this and I think I get the logic behind suing an 18 yr old's estate. They can't sue him because he's dead, and presumably they can't sue his parents because he was a legal adult and they're no longer liable for him. But I think if they sue his estate, and it can't pay, then the debt has to be paid by his next of kin -- i.e., the parents. Maybe the forum's lawyer can give us his take on it when he comes back from Costa Rica.
Yeah, interesting point!
And for all of my googling skills, I couldn't find a reasonable answer on the internet. We'll have to wait to see what someone who actually knows about this sort of thing has to say.
Quote from: Tank on January 05, 2012, 10:40:35 PM
Quote from: Whitney on January 05, 2012, 10:36:49 PM
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 05, 2012, 07:42:55 PM
If this kid was so stupid as to get himself run over by a freakin' train
Just a note that I'm surprised that most men make it to 25 with all the dumb stuff they do ;D
Make a note ladies/females/women (take your pick or add your own collective nown) do not get into a long term relationship with males under 26!
There is a reason why the vast majority of Darwin Awards go to men.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on January 06, 2012, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 06, 2012, 01:05:27 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on January 05, 2012, 03:54:54 PM
So, hypothetically, unless this 18 year old was independently wealthy, the person suing would be pretty out of luck.
I was thinking about this and I think I get the logic behind suing an 18 yr old's estate. They can't sue him because he's dead, and presumably they can't sue his parents because he was a legal adult and they're no longer liable for him. But I think if they sue his estate, and it can't pay, then the debt has to be paid by his next of kin -- i.e., the parents. Maybe the forum's lawyer can give us his take on it when he comes back from Costa Rica.
Yeah, interesting point!
And for all of my googling skills, I couldn't find a reasonable answer on the internet. We'll have to wait to see what someone who actually knows about this sort of thing has to say.
Maybe the imposing of responsibility for the dead is possible in a sharia court.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 06, 2012, 03:42:03 PM
Maybe the imposing of responsibility for the dead is possible in a sharia court.
This is another thing we need to ask Bruce -- are the debts of the dead automatically forgiven, or do they pass to the next of kin for payment?
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 06, 2012, 03:34:39 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 05, 2012, 10:40:35 PM
Quote from: Whitney on January 05, 2012, 10:36:49 PM
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 05, 2012, 07:42:55 PM
If this kid was so stupid as to get himself run over by a freakin' train
Just a note that I'm surprised that most men make it to 25 with all the dumb stuff they do ;D
Make a note ladies/females/women (take your pick or add your own collective nown) do not get into a long term relationship with males under 26!
There is a reason why the vast majority of Darwin Awards go to men.
What? Apart from the fact that they're men?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdingo.care2.com%2Fc2c%2Femoticons%2F%2Fwombat.gif&hash=fccfcc4b6c213307922630c4ab7afaf180876c95)(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdingo.care2.com%2Fc2c%2Femoticons%2F%2Fwombat.gif&hash=fccfcc4b6c213307922630c4ab7afaf180876c95)(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdingo.care2.com%2Fc2c%2Femoticons%2F%2Fwombat.gif&hash=fccfcc4b6c213307922630c4ab7afaf180876c95)(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdingo.care2.com%2Fc2c%2Femoticons%2F%2Fwombat.gif&hash=fccfcc4b6c213307922630c4ab7afaf180876c95)(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdingo.care2.com%2Fc2c%2Femoticons%2F%2Fwombat.gif&hash=fccfcc4b6c213307922630c4ab7afaf180876c95)(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdingo.care2.com%2Fc2c%2Femoticons%2F%2Fwombat.gif&hash=fccfcc4b6c213307922630c4ab7afaf180876c95)(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdingo.care2.com%2Fc2c%2Femoticons%2F%2Fwombat.gif&hash=fccfcc4b6c213307922630c4ab7afaf180876c95)
Seeing as it was the boy's negligence that caused her to be hit by his flying bloody limb, I say it's a legitimate case as well.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 06, 2012, 09:41:24 PM
Seeing as it was the boy's negligence that caused her to be hit by his flying bloody limb, I say it's a legitimate case as well.
Whoa! O_O welcome back, Anarchy! <3 :)
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 06, 2012, 10:19:13 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 06, 2012, 09:41:24 PM
Seeing as it was the boy's negligence that caused her to be hit by his flying bloody limb, I say it's a legitimate case as well.
Whoa! O_O welcome back, Anarchy! <3 :)
Thanks for the welcome back. I randomly take long hiatuses from forums.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 06, 2012, 03:46:40 PM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 06, 2012, 03:42:03 PM
Maybe the imposing of responsibility for the dead is possible in a sharia court.
This is another thing we need to ask Bruce -- are the debts of the dead automatically forgiven, or do they pass to the next of kin for payment?
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm reasonably sure that you can't hold the next of kin liable for the deceased's debts. The estate will pay out whatever it can, so that means that they may not get any life insurance money or whatever, but then anything leftover that the estate doesn't pay isn't the legal responsibility of the family. The reason I think this is that a coworker of mine recently ran into this situation. Her mother-in-law died, and her husband was the executor of the estate. A collection agency tried to come after the husband for his mother's credit card debt since there wasn't enough in the estate to pay it off, but their lawyer advised them that they aren't legally liable for it. So far as I know, that was the end of it.
Maybe the parents had a life insurance policy on the 18 year old that may have paid out some small amount to the estate which would then go to the lady that got hurt? I doubt it would have been a big policy, but a lot of people carry just enough on their kids to pay for a funeral should the unthinkable happen. Of course, if it was the parents' insurance policy, I don't know that it would be considered part of the estate.
As for my reaction to the story....I don't know. I can see her point, but....I just feel like we've become so freaking litigious in this country. Like we can't ever just accept it that accidents and random bad stuff happens - it's always got to be someone's fault and someone has to pay. I know that's totally an emotional reaction, but that's the way I felt when I first read it. I can definitely see what everyone else is saying though too. I wonder if she had health insurance?
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 06, 2012, 09:41:24 PM
Seeing as it was the boy's negligence that caused her to be hit by his flying bloody limb, I say it's a legitimate case as well.
It was worse than a flying limb -- it was a large chunk of torso. I did some more reading up on this and, to my surprise, once the deceased's estate (both cash on hand and anything that can be converted to cash) is zero'd out all debts that remain unpaid are forgiven. I thought for sure somebody would get stuck with the tab. Anyway, I have to assume now that the kid killed by the train he lost a game of chicken with did have some money of his own, perhaps a small inheritance or a savings account set aside for college.
Quote from: Tank on January 06, 2012, 04:01:12 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 06, 2012, 03:34:39 PM
There is a reason why the vast majority of Darwin Awards go to men.
What? Apart from the fact that they're men?
And men do the things they do. I think I'll create a Darwin's Award thread, seeing as the 2011 winners have been announced.
Quote from: Ali on January 07, 2012, 01:25:50 AM
As for my reaction to the story....I don't know. I can see her point, but....I just feel like we've become so freaking litigious in this country. Like we can't ever just accept it that accidents and random bad stuff happens - it's always got to be someone's fault and someone has to pay. I know that's totally an emotional reaction, but that's the way I felt when I first read it. I can definitely see what everyone else is saying though too. I wonder if she had health insurance?
Well, in this case it actually is somebody's fault -- granted the kid paid the ultimate price but that outcome was really easy to call. Her insurance is the turning point for my opinion on this. If she's uninsured, or underinsured, the medical bills for the injuries she suffered are going to pile up in a hurry and I feel that even if the kid's family isn't legally obligated to help her pay them, they are ethically obligated. On the other hand, if she's got insurance that will pay everything, then she's just being greedy and I lose sympathy for her.
This topic is so bizarre that I really don't know what to say. O_o
I found this little tidbit:
Recklessness is usually described as a 'malfeasance' where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance' (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation. (In the United States, there may sometimes be a slightly different interpretation for willful blindness.) The degree of culpability is determined by applying a reasonable person standard. Criminal negligence becomes "gross" when the failure to foresee involves a "wanton disregard for human life" (see the discussion in corporate manslaughter).
So, I guess the question would be, how reasonable is it to assume that the person jumping in front of the train should have considered that he might injure another person?
I'm guessing he wasn't running after the train to so that he could get killed by it...call me biased but I'm going to assume that if you knew that your torso would be violently flung onto some old lady you would refrain from chasing the train in the first place. Unless of course he was suicidal.
O_o
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 07, 2012, 04:40:37 AM
I'm guessing he wasn't running after the train to so that he could get killed by it...call me biased but I'm going to assume that if you knew that your torso would be violently flung onto some old lady you would refrain from chasing the train in the first place. Unless of course he was suicidal.
O_o
He wasn't suicidal -- he ran in front of one train to catch another train. To me it's pretty easy to predict what will happen if you run in front of a train travelling really fast (70 mph, in fact). I have no doubt he had no intention of exploding that day, least of all by train, but even when you do things by accident or unintentionally you're liable for the consequences of them. That woman getting hurt by his flying body part was one of the consequences of his running in front of a train.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 07, 2012, 05:03:41 AM
That woman getting hurt by his flying body part
I just can't get enough of that right there :D
...It's a wee bit sick, really... Ah, who cares!
Quote from: Asmodean on January 07, 2012, 05:07:37 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 07, 2012, 05:03:41 AM
That woman getting hurt by his flying body part
I just can't get enough of that right there :D
...It's a wee bit sick, really... Ah, who cares!
I'd be so freaked out. X_x
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 07, 2012, 05:03:41 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 07, 2012, 04:40:37 AM
I'm guessing he wasn't running after the train to so that he could get killed by it...call me biased but I'm going to assume that if you knew that your torso would be violently flung onto some old lady you would refrain from chasing the train in the first place. Unless of course he was suicidal.
O_o
He wasn't suicidal -- he ran in front of one train to catch another train. To me it's pretty easy to predict what will happen if you run in front of a train travelling really fast (70 mph, in fact). I have no doubt he had no intention of exploding that day, least of all by train, but even when you do things by accident or unintentionally you're liable for the consequences of them. That woman getting hurt by his flying body part was one of the consequences of his running in front of a train.
Spot on. But I don't understand why the woman is suing his estate, because I don't really understand what she stands to benefit from.
However one thought does come to mind. I left my camera in a taxi once and knew which taxi it was. I called the firm and the driver denied that I had left it in it. The taxi firm owner wasn't worried because as he said 'You can claim on insurance.' Well I couldn't claim it as 'lost' but I could claim it as 'stolen', which it was because the taxi driver denied he had taken it. Thus I called the firm back and asked for the drivers details as I would have to report the theft to the police to get a crime number so I could claim for the camera. When I called back to the taxi firm the owner asked if he could check one more time. Ten minutes later he rang back and would you have guessed it, the driver had now 'found' the camera. The point being that the woman may have her own insurance that may only pay out if she can show liability on the part of an uninsured 3rd party. Thus to access her own insurance she has to make a claim.
There was a case in the UK of a wife suing her husband for negligence when she fell out a window he had left open as he had personal liability insurance.
Quote from: Tank on January 07, 2012, 05:51:11 AM
The point being that the woman may have her own insurance that may only pay out if she can show liability on the part of an uninsured 3rd party. Thus to access her own insurance she has to make a claim.
So it could all be nothing but red tape? I find that terribly easy to believe.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 07, 2012, 06:34:34 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 07, 2012, 05:51:11 AM
The point being that the woman may have her own insurance that may only pay out if she can show liability on the part of an uninsured 3rd party. Thus to access her own insurance she has to make a claim.
So it could all be nothing but red tape? I find that terribly easy to believe.
It is possible the woman was caught in red tape. And it is easy to believe given what bastards insurence companies are when you try to get what you pay for.
What sort of railway station would this be, one with platforms or one of those ones where the trains have steps down to ground level? I'm not familiar with non platform stations.
Quote from: Tank on January 07, 2012, 06:36:32 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 07, 2012, 06:34:34 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 07, 2012, 05:51:11 AM
The point being that the woman may have her own insurance that may only pay out if she can show liability on the part of an uninsured 3rd party. Thus to access her own insurance she has to make a claim.
So it could all be nothing but red tape? I find that terribly easy to believe.
It is possible the woman was caught in red tape. And it is easy to believe given what bastards insurence companies are when you try to get what you pay for.
Yes, that I can easily believe. Our "for profit" medical insurance companies are of the devil. (Assuming this happened in the US)
Quote from: Tank on January 07, 2012, 06:36:32 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 07, 2012, 06:34:34 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 07, 2012, 05:51:11 AM
The point being that the woman may have her own insurance that may only pay out if she can show liability on the part of an uninsured 3rd party. Thus to access her own insurance she has to make a claim.
So it could all be nothing but red tape? I find that terribly easy to believe.
It is possible the woman was caught in red tape. And it is easy to believe given what bastards insurence companies are when you try to get what you pay for.
Yeah, actually, the more I think about it, the more I think it is likely that some insurance douche-baggery is probably involved.
Quote from: Whitney on January 05, 2012, 10:36:49 PM
Quote from: MadBomr101 on January 05, 2012, 07:42:55 PM
If this kid was so stupid as to get himself run over by a freakin' train
Just a note that I'm surprised that most men make it to 25 with all the dumb stuff they do ;D
I know! :o
It's a fracking miracle I'm still able to turn 27 tomorrow.....
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 07, 2012, 05:01:54 PM
I know! :o
It's a fracking miracle I'm still able to turn 27 tomorrow.....
Did you get home yet?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 07, 2012, 05:47:46 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 07, 2012, 05:07:37 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 07, 2012, 05:03:41 AM
That woman getting hurt by his flying body part
I just can't get enough of that right there :D
...It's a wee bit sick, really... Ah, who cares!
I'd be so freaked out. X_x
Yeah, normally I take a dim view of people suing for emotional trauma, but in this case it would be well warranted.
I'm no expert on Illinois law, but the following statute, enacted in 2009, says that parents are only liable for malicious or intentional acts of their children living with them:
(740 ILCS 115/3)(from Ch. 70, par. 53)
Sec. 3. Liability. The parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated minor who resides with such parent or legal guardian is liable for actual damages for the wilful or malicious acts of such minor which cause injury to a person or property, including damages caused by a minor who has been adjudicated a delinquent for violating Section 21‑1.3 of the Criminal Code of 1961. Reasonable attorney's fees may be awarded to any plaintiff in any action under this Act. If the plaintiff is a governmental unit, reasonable attorney's fees may be awarded up to $15,000.
The changes to this Section made by this amendatory Act of the 95th General Assembly apply to causes of action accruing on or after its effective date.
(Source: P.A. 95‑914, eff. 1‑1‑09.)
The case we are discussing is from Chicago and only involves negligence, so I doubt the parents are liable. Only the boy's estate is liable, and if he has nothing, the woman gets nothing. But he may have had a trust or other assets.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 07, 2012, 07:49:22 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 07, 2012, 05:01:54 PM
I know! :o
It's a fracking miracle I'm still able to turn 27 tomorrow.....
Did you get home yet?
Just barely. With an alcohol level like a social security number, and the waitresses phone number. ;)
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 08, 2012, 04:16:54 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 07, 2012, 07:49:22 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 07, 2012, 05:01:54 PM
I know! :o
It's a fracking miracle I'm still able to turn 27 tomorrow.....
Did you get home yet?
Just barely. With an alcohol level like a social security number, and the waitresses phone number. ;)
Good. Has somethin' to send you. ouldn't send before Xmas because it would likely be returned as you were like... Somewhere else.