Dead Teen Sued for Flying Body Parts

[Felstaff]

you know for a fact this woman isn't just going to try to get money for medical bills

No. We don't. We really, really don't. You're conjecturing without a shred of evidence. You don't actually know who this woman is, or how her being seriously injured has affected her (answer: significantly, as it's an undeniably traumatic event). You're making up things out of thin air to support your argument that you can't sue a dead person who has caused you serious injury through their own negligence. (not just you, but there's enough in this thread who've repeated this sentiment)

This is a highly unusual, and grotesque case, which is why it's so debated/fascinating. Imagine a different case with a similar outcome; an adult driving a car recklessly. The car crashes, driver gets killed. Let's say a wheel detaches, (as wheels are wont to do) and hits a guy at a strong velocity. The guy, an innocent party, was standing innocently at a gas station, which is where innocent people tend to stand.

For those without an imagination, here's a YouTube clip [Trigger warning! Potentially shocking accident footage!]:

Now, that's quite comical, (and some would say getting hit by a body part at three times that speed would be hilariously macabre), but really, that could've seriously injured the fellow, perhaps with life-altering consequences. That guy was the victim of an accident. Had that accident been caused by dangerous (and stupid) behaviour, that guy would be entitled to compensation for injuries sustained. The guy who drove the car recklessly is dead? Oh, well, that's okay. This guy should be lucky to be alive! He might have lost his job/livelihood, but hey! It was the other guy, the one being a stupid ass, who was killed! This guy should thank his lucky stars he was standing where he was, minding his own business. Compensation? For what? Being seriously injured by someone else's dangerous behaviour? Why on earth would he demand that? Didn't you know the guy who caused it DIED? Have some compassion! It's not like several broken bones is serious. He'll get over it. Probably. Dunno who he is, nor care. Some silly bugger's just died by their own risky behaviour.

In the above example, I'm conflating driving dangerously with running across train tracks. And I believe it is right to. Both are high-risk events, and both could have tragic outcomes (death).

Now, I'm confident that the common consensus is "running across live train tracks, under any circumstances, is one of the most stupid, reckless things you can do. Ever." This dead guy, it has been stated, was crossing the tracks to catch a train because he was late. Stupid, irresponsible, reckless behaviour. Nothing justifies it, and his death was due to his own behaviour. What did the woman do? Stand there, and get the full force of the dead teen's risky actions, resulting in broken limbs and goodness-knows-what kind of trauma. Admittedly a flying torso is significantly more icky than a flying tire (also there's bits of bone in there), but I stand by my analogy! The fact the kid died is irrelevant; his reckless actions caused seriously injury to an innocent bystander! Under the law, he is at fault and she is entitled to claim compensation for the injuries she has sustained. The fact the liable party is now dead and in several pieces means that (in court) this should be dealt with sensitively. As it's been leapt on by the media, sensitivity goes out the window.

 

[Stalydan]

Snip

Okay, that one was pretty bad. Here's my problem though with drawing a comparison. In a case like this where the offending part is the dead, then the next bit to go to is the estate. Whilst the person who died in your case is an adult, the person in this case is a teenager who most likely had no property or significant amounts of money to his name. But if the man driving the car had no money, then the case would stop there because the man who caused the injury is now dead and can't work out any agreement. But in this case being discussed, the teenager's parents are being sued.

It's not just a morally wrong thing for me, I'm willing to get over that. It's also the thing of the guy's parents had nothing to do with their son's really stupid decision but are now being held responsible for it :/

But then again, this wouldn't have happened if America's Health Care System wasn't so fucked.

 

[FamoFunk]

Boy was a complete idiot and paid with his life.
This Woman is just a total greedy, I-love-suing-for-anything *****.

 

[Bobic]

Unless the court reanimates the corpse of the teenager who's body flew into her, I can't in all faith say that's it's right to sue the guy. He can't defend himself and suing his estate is even worse. His parents just lost a kid and now somebody is taking them to court because some of his body hit that person and caused them injury.

If I'm not mistaken, the parents are suing the train company. I'd say that if they're successful, some of the compensation should be awarded to the woman who was injured. Then again, this is America and she's going to try to take them for all the money they have.

Sorry but it's true. For a country that's built on "morals", some of them seem to fly out the window in court.

Wait, the family are suing the train company and this is what you're getting upset about.
'Our son didn't know not to step in front of the tonne of metal travelling at 70mph, give us money' - acceptable
'I got injured due to something that wasn't my fault, and would like some money to pay for my medical bills, so hand it over' - unacceptable

Well the way I've heard it is that they're suing either the train company or the station or something, I don't know. Like I said, if they're successful then money should go to the old woman.

But doesn't that seem more like the immoral thing? The train company, or the station, did absolutely nothing wrong. There was nothing they could have done to stop it. An 18 year old should know full well not to step in front of a train, the responsibility lies fully on the guy, not the train company.

 

[BRex21]

But the thing is, you know for a fact this woman isn't just going to try to get money for medical bills, she'll try to get them for everything that they have and make up ten reasons to go along with that.

Really? Its a fact? Prove it! I don't think you actually know what fact means.

Snip

Okay, that one was pretty bad. Here's my problem though with drawing a comparison. In a case like this where the offending part is the dead, then the next bit to go to is the estate. Whilst the person who died in your case is an adult, the person in this case is a teenager who most likely had no property or significant amounts of money to his name. But if the man driving the car had no money, then the case would stop there because the man who caused the injury is now dead and can't work out any agreement. But in this case being discussed, the teenager's parents are being sued.

It's not just a morally wrong thing for me, I'm willing to get over that. It's also the thing of the guy's parents had nothing to do with their son's really stupid decision but are now being held responsible for it ://quote]

But then again, this wouldn't have happened if America's Health Care System wasn't so fucked.

Okay some more "facts":
1) The parents are NOT GETTING SUED! The only thing that can be taken are cash, including savings, investments and insurance payouts Ect. belonging to the son. Potentially she could take money from a ruling of fault from whatever corporate entity was running the train station, but that would be harder to prove.

2)If the man driving the car was killed, his insurance would probably be liable, there are very few jurisdictions in the first world where you can legally drive without insurance for specifically this scenario. If the man had no money, his insurance would pay. If he didn't have insurance or money it WOULD stop. BUT for that exact reason, "a teenager who most likely had no property or significant amounts of money to his name" would also be judgment proof, which probably means he HAD an insurance policy she is going after.

 

[senordesol]

Stupidity which is justified by court, sigh.
1.) It was the boys fault that he got killed by the train, it wasn't his fault that his bodyparts hit other people. It's foreseeablethat you could get hit by a train when you try to cross the trails, it's not foreseeable that your bodyparts will fly around and hurt other people.

2.) That women had to pay money for medication because she broke some bones? Oh big fucking Boo hoo, that makes me so sad. He died but she of course has rights hasn't she? Who cares about the boy who just payed with his life instead of worthless paper and metal.

1.) It wasn't his fault his body parts hit people? I can't fathom this argument. If it was his fault for putting his body in a position for limbs to fly off, how is it not his fault for where they land? If you fire a gun into the air, yeah you don't know where the bullet will land, but if it DOES hit someone; YOU are responsible. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but there's this word that keeps jumping to mind with regard to this case: RESPONSIBILITY. It doesn't matter whether you meant for someone to get hurt, the only thing that matters is the DIRECT RESULT of your NEGLIGENT actions was someone getting hurt. That means you are RESPONSIBLE.

2.) Broken bones at 58 are no joke. If she has osteoporosis or arthritis we're talking a very long recovery time and severe, crippling daily pain. The fact that the man (not a boy, but a full, legal ADULT) got killed doesn't change that, and it doesn't change that the NEGLIGENT actions that caused his death were also RESPONSIBLE for this condition. It is not incumbent on her to suffer in silence because he caught the worst fallout of his own idiocy.

 

[Stalydan]

But the thing is, you know for a fact this woman isn't just going to try to get money for medical bills, she'll try to get them for everything that they have and make up ten reasons to go along with that.

Really? Its a fact? Prove it! I don't think you actually know what fact means.

Snip

Okay, that one was pretty bad. Here's my problem though with drawing a comparison. In a case like this where the offending part is the dead, then the next bit to go to is the estate. Whilst the person who died in your case is an adult, the person in this case is a teenager who most likely had no property or significant amounts of money to his name. But if the man driving the car had no money, then the case would stop there because the man who caused the injury is now dead and can't work out any agreement. But in this case being discussed, the teenager's parents are being sued.

It's not just a morally wrong thing for me, I'm willing to get over that. It's also the thing of the guy's parents had nothing to do with their son's really stupid decision but are now being held responsible for it ://quote]

But then again, this wouldn't have happened if America's Health Care System wasn't so fucked.

Okay some more "facts":
1) The parents are NOT GETTING SUED! The only thing that can be taken are cash, including savings, investments and insurance payouts Ect. belonging to the son. Potentially she could take money from a ruling of fault from whatever corporate entity was running the train station, but that would be harder to prove.

2)If the man driving the car was killed, his insurance would probably be liable, there are very few jurisdictions in the first world where you can legally drive without insurance for specifically this scenario. If the man had no money, his insurance would pay. If he didn't have insurance or money it WOULD stop. BUT for that exact reason, "a teenager who most likely had no property or significant amounts of money to his name" would also be judgment proof, which probably means he HAD an insurance policy she is going after.

Pulling it down to the first point, how many times do you here of somebody getting into an accident of now fault of their own and just suing for medical expenses? Most people want large sums of compensation as well. And how large it can be is ridiculous some times. Like how those people who sue places like McDonalds because they spilt coffee on themselves and then say that there was no warning to say the coffee was hot. Albeit, these cases are a lot less serious but if you catch the general drift of how much people are willing to try and get out of a court case.

Anyway, back to his parents. His parents are his estate in this case would most likely be his parents. I can't see him having his own health insurance policy either, it would most likely be his parents who pay for that.

Honestly, if she just goes for getting his health insurance to pay for her bills, then whatever. I still find it a bit weird that she has medical bills to pay. Exactly how does health insurance work in that country? Because I can't see her insurance company turning her down to mend some broken bones.

Actually, does she have insurance?

I don't know, this case is confusing because (again) America's Health System is so fucking weird! Why do people not want to pay a tax that would get them all free/cheaper health care? In the long run, you'd all probably benefit from it by not having to pay through the nose for insurance.

 

[Stalydan]

Unless the court reanimates the corpse of the teenager who's body flew into her, I can't in all faith say that's it's right to sue the guy. He can't defend himself and suing his estate is even worse. His parents just lost a kid and now somebody is taking them to court because some of his body hit that person and caused them injury.

If I'm not mistaken, the parents are suing the train company. I'd say that if they're successful, some of the compensation should be awarded to the woman who was injured. Then again, this is America and she's going to try to take them for all the money they have.

Sorry but it's true. For a country that's built on "morals", some of them seem to fly out the window in court.

Wait, the family are suing the train company and this is what you're getting upset about.
'Our son didn't know not to step in front of the tonne of metal travelling at 70mph, give us money' - acceptable
'I got injured due to something that wasn't my fault, and would like some money to pay for my medical bills, so hand it over' - unacceptable

Well the way I've heard it is that they're suing either the train company or the station or something, I don't know. Like I said, if they're successful then money should go to the old woman.

But doesn't that seem more like the immoral thing? The train company, or the station, did absolutely nothing wrong. There was nothing they could have done to stop it. An 18 year old should know full well not to step in front of a train, the responsibility lies fully on the guy, not the train company.

Yeah but that's all I'm saying. If they win some money from it then it should go to her. Nobody is really right or wrong in this case anyway, it's just unfortunate what happened because of some really stupid decision.

 

[sniddy_v1legacy]

Ok - way I see this

Dumb kid, does dumb thing, dies

Innocent person inconvenienced by dumb kid doing dumb thing and has reasonable grounds for financial compensation for bills, loss of earnings, time off work, future affects and maybe even the general distress.

Dumb kid is dead - however this does excuse his estate from funding it, what you class as 'his estate' is the technical part, by now I'd assume he was legally an adult and as such I can't see them suing the parents...so what 'estate' there is, is to me the question and how much funding one can expect from it...

 

[esperandote]

Killed and sued, worst day ever. (Plus he missed his train)

 

[Kopikatsu]

I don't know, this case is confusing because (again) America's Health System is so fucking weird! Why do people not want to pay a tax that would get them all free/cheaper health care? In the long run, you'd all probably benefit from it by not having to pay through the nose for insurance.

Because saying the words 'raise' and 'taxes' in the same sentence in the US will basically get you the same amount of support from the public as if you'd said that you were a pedophile homosexual atheist who supports abolition of religion, and communism with a few socialist principals.

Also Anti-Christ.

Funfact: The 'unconscionable' taxes imposed on the American Colonies were 1/20th that of those British citizens had to pay. The US was literally founded on an irrational hatred of taxes.

Hell, I would give up my right to vote if I only had to pay 1/20th of my taxes.

 

[Stalydan]

Ok - way I see this

Dumb kid, does dumb thing, dies

Innocent person inconvenienced by dumb kid doing dumb thing and has reasonable grounds for financial compensation for bills, loss of earnings, time off work, future affects and maybe even the general distress.

Dumb kid is dead - however this does excuse his estate from funding it, what you class as 'his estate' is the technical part, by now I'd assume he was legally an adult and as such I can't see them suing the parents...so what 'estate' there is, is to me the question and how much funding one can expect from it...

That's what I've been thinking for a bit now. Kid is legally an adult (I don't think so though. I'm 18 and I can tell you that I am not a responsible adult xD) so wouldn't that mean that his estate and his parents are separate? But the way I've heard it, she's suing his parents. Which made me and a lot of other people go "Wtf?! Why's she suing his parents?!".

As an 18 year old, I can say I have no estate what so ever. I own a TV, console, some games, a netbook and stuff like clothes. If somebody wants them, they can have them. I don't think that they'd get much for them though.

 

[Cyrus Hanley]

But the thing is, you know for a fact this woman isn't just going to try to get money for medical bills, she'll try to get them for everything that they have and make up ten reasons to go along with that.

Really? Its a fact? Prove it! I don't think you actually know what fact means.

Snip

Okay, that one was pretty bad. Here's my problem though with drawing a comparison. In a case like this where the offending part is the dead, then the next bit to go to is the estate. Whilst the person who died in your case is an adult, the person in this case is a teenager who most likely had no property or significant amounts of money to his name. But if the man driving the car had no money, then the case would stop there because the man who caused the injury is now dead and can't work out any agreement. But in this case being discussed, the teenager's parents are being sued.

It's not just a morally wrong thing for me, I'm willing to get over that. It's also the thing of the guy's parents had nothing to do with their son's really stupid decision but are now being held responsible for it ://quote]

But then again, this wouldn't have happened if America's Health Care System wasn't so fucked.

Okay some more "facts":
1) The parents are NOT GETTING SUED! The only thing that can be taken are cash, including savings, investments and insurance payouts Ect. belonging to the son. Potentially she could take money from a ruling of fault from whatever corporate entity was running the train station, but that would be harder to prove.

2)If the man driving the car was killed, his insurance would probably be liable, there are very few jurisdictions in the first world where you can legally drive without insurance for specifically this scenario. If the man had no money, his insurance would pay. If he didn't have insurance or money it WOULD stop. BUT for that exact reason, "a teenager who most likely had no property or significant amounts of money to his name" would also be judgment proof, which probably means he HAD an insurance policy she is going after.

Pulling it down to the first point, how many times do you here of somebody getting into an accident of now fault of their own and just suing for medical expenses? Most people want large sums of compensation as well. And how large it can be is ridiculous some times. Like how those people who sue places like McDonalds because they spilt coffee on themselves and then say that there was no warning to say the coffee was hot. Albeit, these cases are a lot less serious but if you catch the general drift of how much people are willing to try and get out of a court case.

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500. Her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500. Her loss of income was approximately $5,000. This came to a total of approximately $18,000.

Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, that was when Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan to file a lawsuit.

 

[esperandote]

If I do something that causes me to die, and causes some random person to lose money, then they should certainly be able to sue my estate.

Killed and sued, worst day ever. (Plus he missed his train)

He didn't miss it at all. In fact, he actually came very close to it.

Although she could sue the train driver, if it turns out that the driver swerved and hit the guy.

..ok I'm done now.

For what i understood he was hit by another train, not the one he was trying to catch.

 

[FalloutJack]

That IS a little fucked up. Too soon to make the 'beating a dead horse' joke? No, sorry... The one 'responsible' is is dead. This is what's known as a 'tragic accident'.

 

[Stalydan]

Snip

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500. Her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500. Her loss of income was approximately $5,000. This came to a total of approximately $18,000.

Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, that was when Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan to file a lawsuit.

Really? I still think it's a miracle she was offered any money. Though I checked her age. She was 79 years old at the time. Where was her loss of income coming from?

Either way, it was hot but I think the main problem in the case is that she wore pants that soaked it up. Combined with the fact that the coffee is kept really hot (for which I'll explain later in the post), it is pretty dangerous to spill it because it's the effect of leaving your hand in the cup.

Though I don't think it's helped in her favour because she did try to add the cream and sugar in the car with the cup between her legs. Parked up but it's the not the ideal location to try and do that sort of thing.

I think the best quote is for this also about a similar case in the UK that failed.

"If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald?s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 C and 60 C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 C and 95 C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 C and 60 C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled."

I don't know what issues 1 and 2 are but you see the general point. Coffee is kept hot because people like it hot and common sense is that you shouldn't spill it because it will scald you. Sad for the people who do but it's a risk that you take when you buy it.

 

[BRex21]

Pulling it down to the first point, how many times do you here of somebody getting into an accident of now fault of their own and just suing for medical expenses? Most people want large sums of compensation as well. And how large it can be is ridiculous some times. Like how those people who sue places like McDonalds because they spilt coffee on themselves and then say that there was no warning to say the coffee was hot. Albeit, these cases are a lot less serious but if you catch the general drift of how much people are willing to try and get out of a court case.

The problem with this is you have no idea what you are talking about. You very frequently hear about people who sue specifically for their expenses largely because most forms of civil court don't allow for pain and suffering compensation, only actual damages, you incur a higher burden of proof when suing for pain and suffering, and she could easily loose everything on this, no good lawyer would take that case.
but you argument for fact appears to be wild conjecture. If i went to America, and saw a guy who owned a horse would it be fact that all Americans own horses?

Anyway, back to his parents. His parents are his estate in this case would most likely be his parents. I can't see him having his own health insurance policy either, it would most likely be his parents who pay for that.

This isn't how it works. She is suing his estate, essentially, the financial value he had accrued at the time of his death, he does not own his parents therefore they are not being sued. What she can claim is the value of large assets such as his car or any value he had in his home, only a home he owned that was in his and only his name, any insurance that he himself would have collected, this excludes any life insurance that the parents or other parties would be the beneficiaries of, and any cash assets he had, like education savings or whatnot. The law is VERY SPECIFIC as to what makes up a persons estate and it is entirely different from what you think it is. AT LEAST have the decency to look these things up on Wikipedia or something.

Honestly, if she just goes for getting his health insurance to pay for her bills, then whatever. I still find it a bit weird that she has medical bills to pay. Exactly how does health insurance work in that country? Because I can't see her insurance company turning her down to mend some broken bones.

Actually, does she have insurance?

Many Americans don't have health insurance its quite common, especially among seniors who are stuck in public transit, people with the money to buy these things often choose to go for cars which are a day to day improvement in quality of life, whereas health insurance often seems less important until it is actually needed. You see health insurance works in America basically the same way it works in any country, but as opposed to opting in by filing out a form when you become a citizen you opt in by buying a policy. If you don't opt in, you aren't covered. Its pretty simple.

I don't know, this case is confusing because (again) America's Health System is so fucking weird! Why do people not want to pay a tax that would get them all free/cheaper health care? In the long run, you'd all probably benefit from it by not having to pay through the nose for insurance.

the argument im getting here is i dont understand it so it must be wrong!!! Its not "America" that does not want socialized medicine its a percentage of America that sees they have the best healthcare anywhere. As a Canadian who lived in the USA for 2 years I can honestly say there healthcare is a hell of a lot better than ours, a trip for a few stitches literally took 10 minutes as opposed to waiting a few hours before even seeing a doctor.
Big newsflash here too, your healthcare ISN'T FREE! You pay for it with taxes which is pretty much the same as paying for it with insurance except for the personal choice aspect.
I do think socialized medicine is important, but there is valid argument to have better care if you are willing to pay for it.

 

[Nielas]

Snip

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500. Her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500. Her loss of income was approximately $5,000. This came to a total of approximately $18,000.

Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, that was when Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan to file a lawsuit.

Really? I still think it's a miracle she was offered any money. Though I checked her age. She was 79 years old at the time. Where was her loss of income coming from?

Either way, it was hot but I think the main problem in the case is that she wore pants that soaked it up. Combined with the fact that the coffee is kept really hot (for which I'll explain later in the post), it is pretty dangerous to spill it because it's the effect of leaving your hand in the cup.

Though I don't think it's helped in her favour because she did try to add the cream and sugar in the car with the cup between her legs. Parked up but it's the not the ideal location to try and do that sort of thing.

One of the main reasons why MacDonald's lost that case is because they admitted that they knew about the many serious injuries the hot coffee was causing but decided that it was not financially beneficial to do anything about it. Juries hate that kind of reasoning by a corporation.