Dead Teen Sued for Flying Body Parts

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

Holy Christ! Any respect for the dead!? It would be slightly different if it was suicide, but seriously, accidental death from negligence? I'd just be happy I was still alive myself!

Drunk driver slams into a car, killing himself, as well as the mother in the car hit hit, turnign one of the kids into a paraplegic and leaving the other kid with a permanent brain injury. The medical, education, and care costs, as well as future earning potential lost, are astronomical.

But hey, lets not sue, after all the drunk driver died too. I guess the father will have to give up custody of the kids and let the kids grow up parentless in a home somewhere.

Thats different... That guy made a choice. It seems from the story in this article that the guy died accidentally. Drunk drivers are just fucking stupid! And this woman just broke her leg and wrist... Whoop-di-doo! I have friends with missing limbs, caused by the Taliban. Who do they sue?

Also... National Health Service... Its a brilliant thing...

 

[Wicky_42]

Seems a bit silly, i mean if someone was running in between the tracks and such, wouldn't it make more sense to highten safety and such (with things like fences and stuff) and besides, if there was flying chunks, wouldn't people have time to react and block?

Someone just died, they should think about how lucky they got unscathed and that they can still have a quality of life, even with the injuries. D:

Lol, so your answer to a kid being an idiot, getting himself killed and causing physical (and presumably psychological) injury to others is "well, we need more state-sponsored coddling to stop people being silly, and it's their own fault they got hit by body parts launched at 70 mph"?! Thanks for making my day that little bit more amused!

Normally I'm against litigation for profit, but I'm on the woman's side. It's bad enough train drivers have to deal with trauma from selfish suicides without idiots causing serious collateral to innocent by-standers with equally selfish behaviour. Just a shame that the boy's family has to deal with both at once - another pointer to the selfishness of his behaviour, and lack of consideration for the consequences of his actions. I'm not going to go so far as to make gene-pool cleansing jokes, he doesn't deserve that, but the woman suing is in the right in this case.

 

[Vegosiux]

[

How is it any less callous to say the following:

"If she's weak enough to break a bone from that kind of incident, then she wasn't taking good care of herself and therefore in not entitled to any money for her injuries."

No less callous at all. But seriously, the issue is in the healthcare system primarily.

 

[Eggsnham]

We had a thread on ths week or so back. If you understand the law it pretty straight liaility and is a reasonable lawsuit. The teen, through his negligent action caused injury to others. His dying due to his actions does not release his estate from liability.

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.

It wasn't a car accident. The kid was hit by a train, and his body parts flew around and hit a woman, injuring her.

Yes, the kid in question could have been more careful, but he's the one who got the worst of it...

Actually, it worries me that the woman suing is more concerned about money than the fact that she was injured by a flying body part!

A DISMEMBERED. FLYING. BODY PART.

 

[Niflhel]

As long as she's only suing to cover her medical costs, I see nothing wrong with this.
She will probably not be able to work for quite a while. It's not certain she'll make a full recovery. The whole incident will most definitely scar her emotionally.

Further on, she was hit by a body part traveling at a fairly high speed. Blaming HER for breaking her bones is asinine. Do you decide how tough your bones are? No? Thought so.

Finally, too many people in this thread only views this incident from the parents point of view. Try putting yourself in her shoes. The injuries she sustained was not due to any mistakes she committed, it was entirely because of the young mans reckless behaviour.

To all those who think she's a bad person for doing this:I suggest you send the woman enough money to cover the loss of 2-3 paychecks as well as all medical expenses she'll have to pay following this incident.
After all, you are just as guilty as she is - That is, not guilty at all. You can spare the parents from further pain.
What's that, you don't feel like coughing up with the cash? Then shut your mouth, and get off your high horse.

 

[Wicky_42]

Holy Christ! Any respect for the dead!? It would be slightly different if it was suicide, but seriously, accidental death from negligence? I'd just be happy I was still alive myself!

Drunk driver slams into a car, killing himself, as well as the mother in the car hit hit, turnign one of the kids into a paraplegic and leaving the other kid with a permanent brain injury. The medical, education, and care costs, as well as future earning potential lost, are astronomical.

But hey, lets not sue, after all the drunk driver died too. I guess the father will have to give up custody of the kids and let the kids grow up parentless in a home somewhere.

Thats different... That guy made a choice. It seems from the story in this article that the guy died accidentally. Drunk drivers are just fucking stupid! And this woman just broke her leg and wrist... Whoop-di-doo! I have friends with missing limbs, caused by the Taliban. Who do they sue?

Also... National Health Service... Its a brilliant thing...

No, in this article the guy made the choice to run across the tracks - he wasn't even inebriated, he just thought he could out-run a train. His flying bodyparts caused a woman to break two limbs. She's not a soldier, she wasn't at war with the train or the guy, she was waiting for her train and some twat goes and fucks up her day and her health. Perfectly legitimate to seek compensation, more power to her. Just cause the guy died doesn't make the consequences of his action go away, though as I said above, sympathy goes to his family for having to deal with the fallout.

 

[Nielas]

I would understand if something happened to the passengers of the train and they sued, because the guy had control over jumping in front of the train. But the court saying it's okay to sue for this is kinda saying he had control over which direction his body parts flew. What if I got hit by a dead duck, do I sue the hunter who shot it?

If you put a heavy object in the path of a fast train, the object will be propelled away from the tracks at a high velocity. It will hit something and if it hits a person it can cause serious damage. The guy had control over not putting a heavy object (his body) on the tracks and thus creating a situation where a person might be injured.

What if the guy was instead moving a piano on the tracks it was hit by a train and a piece of it hit them woman. Would he not be liable for the damage?

On a general note, what if the guy borrowed $10,000 from you a then got killed by the train. Would you just forget the debt or would you try to recover as much as you could from whatever money the guy left behind as his legal estate.

 

[tsb247]

[

How is it any less callous to say the following:

"If she's weak enough to break a bone from that kind of incident, then she wasn't taking good care of herself and therefore in not entitled to any money for her injuries."

No less callous at all. But seriously, the issue is in the healthcare system primarily.

True, but one cannot argue that she deserves no compensation just because the healthcare system in the U.S. isn't like (insert country here), and she needs help with her bills.

I will be the first to agree that healthcare needs to be reformed (since the last reform did very little and I think it should go in a different direction), but the notion that she should not get any compensation to help with her bills because people feel she shouldn't have to is absurd because we aren't arguing whether she should have to or not, but instead we are saying that she likely does need the extra money because the system isn't set up in such a way, or she simply cannot afford the care with her insurance alone.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

Why are people so defensive of this kid? Can't you see a train coming? And you still decide to risk it? You don't have the level of intelligence to think "Hey, I better just WALK AROUND THIS WHOLE THING." but instead jump across tracks? I have zero sympathy for this kid.

The woman, if suing for medical costs, is completely in the right on this one. There is no way I could ever agree with people saying the guy should be left to rest. Responsibility for your actions. Responsibility. Think about the other people who have to pay (literally and figuratively) if anything ever happens to you for dumb shit you try to do.

 

[OManoghue]

He really should of thought about what he was doing, not that he deserved to die, but his poor judgement did get someone hurt.

 

[DementedSheep]

I don?t live in the US I live in NZ but aren?t medical bills very expensive and not necessarily covered by insurance in the US? So I guess I can understand why she sued if she is doing it to cover her medical bills and loss of income, not trying to sue them for all they are worth.
The court ruling makes sense, he was running across the tracks and someone else got hurt because of recklessness (note: this does not mean I think he deserved it even if he was an idiot) tho I feel sorry for his relatives, this is the last thing they need. It?s cold but the courts are meant to be cold. Sure the guy died so he and his family get the lion?s share of the sympathy but that doesn?t mean you just ignore everyone else.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

Holy Christ! Any respect for the dead!? It would be slightly different if it was suicide, but seriously, accidental death from negligence? I'd just be happy I was still alive myself!

Drunk driver slams into a car, killing himself, as well as the mother in the car hit hit, turnign one of the kids into a paraplegic and leaving the other kid with a permanent brain injury. The medical, education, and care costs, as well as future earning potential lost, are astronomical.

But hey, lets not sue, after all the drunk driver died too. I guess the father will have to give up custody of the kids and let the kids grow up parentless in a home somewhere.

Thats different... That guy made a choice. It seems from the story in this article that the guy died accidentally. Drunk drivers are just fucking stupid! And this woman just broke her leg and wrist... Whoop-di-doo! I have friends with missing limbs, caused by the Taliban. Who do they sue?

Also... National Health Service... Its a brilliant thing...

They BOTH made a choice. One decided to drive drunk, the other decided to make a suicide run in front of a train. Actually there is some argument that the idiot kid made a more active and thoughtful choice than the blotto guy.

As for NHS, I'm in Canada. So what. The issue still exists with free health care. I was in a car accident about a year and a half ago and received a rather serious back injury including some nerve damage. Medical bills weren't my problem. Missed work, the inability to care for my child, the inability to look after myself in some ways, the inability to do basic house chores, etc. I had plenty of costs and problems I needed help with that had nothing to do with the medical costs.

In this case you are dealing with bone breaks on a senior citizen. You know that sometimes those NEVER heal right? That she might be wheelchair bound, at least in the interm? Is probably incapable of shopping, cleaning, maybe even cooking for herself? It's not a small thing at all to bust a wrist at any age, but as a senior? Really bad. And I think they said there was a busted leg as well, what if she's a diabetic? A diabetic senior with that kind of injury is even at risk of losing the leg and that has long term non medical costs.

Stop focussing on the medical bills, that's only a tiny peace of rehabilitation and care in relation to serious injuries.

Wow, you have some sort of problem... Seriously chill the fuck out!

Accidents happen, people shoud just deal with it! I was playing cricket in school when I was younger, and caught the ball badly, breaking my finger. My mum lost a day of work because she had to take me to hospital. Did we sue... no, it was an accident! Even if I was forced to play cricket...

I would only personally sue if someone malicioulsly meant to harm me... otherwise 'accidents happen'. That's what insurance is for.

 

[Nielas]

Wow, you have some sort of problem... Seriously chill the fuck out!

Accidents happen, people shoud just deal with it! I was playing cricket in school when I was younger, and caught the ball badly, breaking my finger. My mum lost a day of work because she had to take me to hospital. Did we sue... no, it was an accident! Even if I was forced to play cricket...

I would only personally sue if someone malicioulsly meant to harm me... otherwise 'accidents happen'. That's what insurance is for.

What if someone was goofing off, put a blind fold on and started throwing balls randomly? Would you just shrug it off as a 'accident happen' if you got hit and it broke your hand? He probably did not mean to hurt you but he obviously did not care that he might hurt someone through his actions. That is what 'reckless' means.

 

[senordesol]

The man was an adult, running across train tracks. Sympathy levels at zero. Seriously, TRAIN TRACKS. I mean...what else is there to say? There were only two fucking directions on a basically one-dimensional plane instant death could come from and he still manages to get splattered. For fuck's sake.

I am just as frustrated as the next guy by our sue-happy culture, but I've got nothing against the woman taking what she needs to be compensated for this sheer, naked idiocy.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

The man was an adult, running across train tracks. Sympathy levels at zero. Seriously, TRAIN TRACKS. I mean...what else is there to say? There were only two fucking directions on a basically one-dimensional plane instant death could come from and he still manages to get splattered. For fuck's sake.

I am just as frustrated as the next guy by our sue-happy culture, but I've got nothing against the woman taking what she needs to be compensated for this sheer, naked idiocy.

Agreed with you 100%. Everybody sues for everything, but here I really don't see a problem.

 

[jimbob123432]

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.

2. Trains are large and loud, and one expects them at train tracks or stations. Ergo, running out onto the tracks without looking is reckless. No, he didn't think ahead properly -- that's what reckless means.

3. This woman wasn't just inconveneienced by this. She was injured. Bones were broken by the impact (and likely subsequent fall). Not only is there the pain and discomfort, there's always a chance (at her age) that things will never fully heal, meaning decreased mobility. And then you have the medical bills for treatment, prescriptions, and physical therapy. It was not her recklessness that led to her injuries, so it's only right that she should be allowed to demand help from the man's estate.

4. She isn't suing the dead man. You can't sue a dead man. You can, however, sue the estate of the dead man -- that means she is suing for a portion of what the man left behind, in order to help her pay for all the care she'll need for injuries sustained due to his negligence.

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.

Umm... The part of the OP in quotations in from the article, I didn't write any of it. The only part I wrote was the last line, so I don't see why you're getting mad at me for something I didn't write.

 

[TheDooD]

I would understand if something happened to the passengers of the train and they sued, because the guy had control over jumping in front of the train. But the court saying it's okay to sue for this is kinda saying he had control over which direction his body parts flew. What if I got hit by a dead duck, do I sue the hunter who shot it?

nah you have to apologize to the hunter for his duck he shot hitting you....

OT

The way body parts fly is something you can't predict at all and overall its a stupid thing to sue over imo. It's like if you're in the area of where a car accident happened and you was hit by an object shit happens. It's pretty much wrong, place wrong time. I realize the woman was hurt but where in the fuck is the insurance company shouldn't they cover this. Or did her services suddenly just "drop" that part of coverage.