Dead Teen Sued - Guess Why

[xSilverPhinx]

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

[Sandra Craft]

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.

[Asmodean]

That woman getting hurt by his flying body part

I just can't get enough of that right there  

...It's a wee bit sick, really... Ah, who cares!

[Sweetdeath]

That woman getting hurt by his flying body part

I just can't get enough of that right there  

...It's a wee bit sick, really... Ah, who cares!

I'd be so freaked out. X_x

[Tank]

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.

[Sandra Craft]

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.

[Tank]

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.

[The Magic Pudding]

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.

[Ali]

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)

[DeterminedJuliet]

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.

[Guardian85]

  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 

I know! 
It's a fracking miracle I'm still able to turn 27 tomorrow.....

[Asmodean]

I know! 
It's a fracking miracle I'm still able to turn 27 tomorrow.....

Did you get home yet?

[Sandra Craft]

That woman getting hurt by his flying body part

I just can't get enough of that right there  

...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.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

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.

[Guardian85]

I know! 
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.