Dead Teen Sued for Flying Body Parts

[Dastardly]

I was speaking from a purely opinion-based position, nothing legal.

Roger that. I was just clarifying the reasoning behind the legality of it (which happens to match my opinion). Even if she doesn't "need" the money, she also shouldn't "need" to pay for something that was clearly someone else's fault.

 

[F'Angus]

Seriously? ...what? ... This is just too crazy

 

[tmande2nd]

Pardon my French but that woman sounds like some greedy fat *****.

"AH SHUCKS! I feel on my ass and broke my happy meal!"
"Time to sue someone because I was to chuncky to move!"

If she is not fat she is still a *****.

Broken wrist, broken leg, damaged shoulder, medical expenses, hit by a heavy projectile moving at a considerable speed, likely didn't see it coming, even if she did it's hard to dodge something coming at you at about 50 m/h. Sorry, if I was to write in full sentences how many things you got wrong it would take too long.

I was aware of the extent of her injuries.

I was pointing out how stupid the whole thing is and how pathetic it really sounds.

 

[DolorousEdd]

The Escapist boards in a nutshell...

 

[Plucky]

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:


EDIT: i mean someone can still move about if the left leg was broke, but the right wrist was shattered, thus meaning theres perfect symmetry...somewhat, though its better to use both hands for crutches than just using the one, safer too.

Just because she CAN still move around doesn't mean that she should have to pay medical bills for and injury that she didn't cause and which wasn't her fault. Someone died? Boo hoo. Now we focus on the people who are alive and need medical attention because of him.

Im just saying that someone died, its a mournful time for the teen's family, if anything, she should probably only sue them for the cost of the medical bills, and the amount of cash she would've got if she was able to work had the injuries prevented her from working, maybe even a bit more if her injuries had hampered her quality of life.

 

[Dastardly]

I'm .. lost for words right now. It's sort of shocking, out of place, and questionable. Like, why did the guy think that running across a train track would be worth catching the next train? Also as sad as I feel for the woman, what made her possible think about suing his belongings or family for the matter?

If I was struck with a dead body or limb.. despite the injuries as harsh as broken bones.. I wouldn't consider suing. I would be scared to death and need therapy for the sudden disturbing event. However people are all different and think differently. Just hope the family who belongs to the young adult will be alright in the end. They don't deserve to be dragged into court because he died and somehow his body goes right into someone injuring them.

I find it's often a bad idea to say what we wouldn't do, in a situation that we will probably never be in. As people, we can probably say what we hope we would do... but often we're ignoring very practical facts that are really only apparent once you're in the situation.

This guy does something negligent, winds up dead, and you're hit by his debris. Suddenly you've got broken bones. That means pain and discomfort. That means decreased mobility both on and off the job. It might mean lost wages. It certainly means medical bills. And she's in her 50's -- while not old, it's also not "instant bounce-back" age anymore. Bone breaks in a middle-aged woman can be very serious. Leg and wrist... those impact nearly every aspect of a person's life.

Basically, you find yourself saddled with sudden, unexpected, and large bills. You also find yourself, due to the injuries, less able to earn the extra money you'll need to afford them. In a situation like that, I think anyone could be expected to demand a little help. She's not asking for a payday. She's not asking for free money for life. She's asking to be restored as close to "original condition" as can be managed, including her financial state.

I agree that the parents don't "deserve" to be dragged to court. I also believe this woman doesn't "deserve" to get stuck with all of the bills and trouble this has undoubtedly caused her. This isn't an issue that's about "deserving" or being at "fault." The only one at fault is the guy that didn't look both ways before crossing.

But it is about responsibility. The guy was responsible for his death and this woman's injuries. As such, he is responsible for helping her on expenses. She's not suing the parents for their money. She's suing the guy's estate for his money. If that runs out (what's the net worth of the average 18-year-old?), that's all she gets -- she can't then go after the parents, nor should she.

 

[oktalist]

The old lady is not suing the parents. She is suing the dead kid's estate.

That's the same, because the parents will always be the ones caring for 'the estate'.

It's not the same. Let's say for the sake of argument that the dead guy owned assets valued at $1,000, and his parents owned assets valued at $100,000. When he died, they inherited his estate, so now they own assets valued at $101,000. The injured party is suing the dead guy's estate, not his parents, so the maximum the parents can be made to pay her would be the $1,000 of assets they inherited. Which is entirely justifiable.

 

[baconfist]

Stories like this are a tragedy. If only there was some kind of large fast moving hazard on those train tracks to act as a deterrent to keep people from running on them. Red flashing lights and a bell would help too.

 

[Poomermon]

And obviously I was, by noting that it's just not right to cause the parents who just lost their son even more grief by dragging them into court and trying to get millions of dollars from them, no matter what the circumstances.

Unless anyone wants to defend the idea that it's alright to cause grief to relatives who just had a loved one die (that's kind of like the westboro baptist church), I'd assume that sentiment to be universal.

Do you think the grief of the relatives is the only thing to consider here? Lets assume for a moment this was a car accident and the kid died while driving recklessly and injured the old lady at the same time. Do you think anyone would blame her for wanting a compensation for damages caused in that case? Because that sort of thing happens all the time if I'm not mistaken. Only thing different in this real life example is that the way injury was caused is abnormal. That does not take away the fact that the kid was negligent and directly caused the injury.

Sure asking for compensation can cause parents more grief but that is not a valid point in the court. The fact is that the old lady was considerably affected (medical bills, loss of income) by kids negligence and that is way more serious than some mental anguish by parents. Maybe the old lady is poor and the medical bills could ruin her financially. If she wanted she could let the thing go but in no way is she obliged to take a possibly considerable losses just so the parents won't feel so bad. Life must go on and grief is not an excuse to ignore real life problems.

 

[Pipotchi]

Much as I loath the American Healthcare system, this woman should not have to pay her increased premiums/entire cost of healthcare when the fault is someone elses, espicially when that someone else is an adult who acted recklessly. The fact that he died makes it harsh on his family but doesnt alter the culpability.

Also to everyone saying the person who fell down is fat/unhealthy, the bodyparts must have been flying, she had no chance of dodging if it was going at 70 regardless of how fat she might be

 

[Dogstile]

And this is why free health care should rule. America's health care system allows this to happen and anyone outside America is going to be confused beyond all belief when they hear about it while Americans will be thinking "well duh, no shit she's suing".

This is an argument of cultures, not of laws methinks.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

Many people can see it, its optional to look to your left or right, but body parts torn from another hiting people will actualy cause emotional problems.

sure, it will, but not every tragedy needs to be blamed on someone.

and maybe that's what we need to see this as, a tragedy, something that simply shouldn't have happened, yet it did, shit happens.

if someone dies because of a gruesome accident, people shouldn't haul off with his possessions under claims of trauma just for observing it, what about the guy who lost his life? what about his family?
don't you owe THEM money for not saving the poor sod?

No, because you couldn't help it, and neither could they or anyone else, the only person remotely to blame has payed for his mistake with his life, deal with it.

 

[Pipotchi]

And this is why free health care should rule. America's health care system allows this to happen and anyone outside America is going to be confused beyond all belief when they hear about it while Americans will be thinking "well duh, no shit she's suing".

This is an argument of cultures, not of laws methinks.

But even in countries where the Healthcare is free she would still most likely sue for loss of earnings. If shes off work for 2 months or even longer she should be compensated and as he is culpable the 18 year old is liable.

Many people can see it, its optional to look to your left or right, but body parts torn from another hiting people will actualy cause emotional problems.

sure, it will, but not every tragedy needs to be blamed on someone.

and maybe that's what we need to see this as, a tragedy, something that simply shouldn't have happened, yet it did, shit happens.

if someone dies because of a gruesome accident, people shouldn't haul off with his possessions under claims of trauma just for observing it, what about the guy who lost his life? what about his family?
don't you owe THEM money for not saving the poor sod?

No, because you couldn't help it, and neither could they or anyone else, the only person remotely to blame has payed for his mistake with his life, deal with it.

But this wasnt an accident? It was a reckless act that was easily avoidable, accident implies it was no ones fault but he is clearly culpable in this case

 

[krazykidd]

It is not reasonable to expect her to pay for the medical aid just because the kid is now dead.

Which is why her insurance pays, which wouldn't be an issue at all if the US had a normal system for health insurance.

Also, is it reasonable then to go to the boy's family and say "Your kid is dead, with bodyparts scattered all over the place. Now I claim millions in damages from you because I'm a fat unhealthy slob who breaks everything when merely falling down".

Because quite frankly, that's the other side of the story in this matter.

I Agree.Also :

What kid? I read a story about an adult? 18 is an adult . His paren't shouldn't pay a dime for what happened since the MAN ( not boy ) is no loger a minor. Seriously , suing because someone got hit by a train and she got hit by body parts? I kinda wish she got impaled by a body part and died too .

Oh well Karma is a ***** , and this woman just earn herself some bad karma.

 

[kinapuffar]

I agree with being able to sue the teen. He was a dumbass and that's his fault.
But his family should not be held responsible for anything he does.
I wholly reject the notion of any human, family or not, being held responsible for the actions of another. That shit won't fly with me.

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:

What?
Someone died, because he was stupid enough to jump in front of a train. It wasn't an accident, he was an idiot.
How is she lucky to be alive? She wasn't running across the tracks, there was no chance of her being hurt at all if it wasn't for this dumb kid.

 

[chris11246]

Wow, that's enough internet for today.

Although it did sound like he was being reckless, I'd have thought that hopefully she could just go to the insurance company and settle it quietly, as no doubt it's distressing for everyone involved this way.

You don't know how insurance works do you? When one of my mom's employees children got injured in a car accident caused by another person they had to sue the person for the insurance money. Not because the person didn't want to pay but because the insurance company wouldn't have otherwise.

Pardon my French but that woman sounds like some greedy fat *****.

"AH SHUCKS! I feel on my ass and broke my happy meal!"
"Time to sue someone because I was to chuncky to move!"

If she is not fat she is still a *****.

If the body parts were going fast enough to break bones then there wasn't any way she could have possibly gotten out of the way. Especially since she wouldn't have expected a person's body parts to hit her while she was waiting for a train, a thing people do all the time without incident.

Everybody on the escapist must be rich because they must be able to afford health for an injury that could last a lifetime, at her age, and require a huge amount of money to treat. The kid made an obviously stupid mistake by running across the tracks, especially if he knew the train was almost there, why should she have to pay for someone else's mistake.

 

[kinapuffar]

Wow, that's enough internet for today.

Although it did sound like he was being reckless, I'd have thought that hopefully she could just go to the insurance company and settle it quietly, as no doubt it's distressing for everyone involved this way.

You don't know how insurance works do you? When one of my mom's employees children got injured in a car accident caused by another person they had to sue the person for the insurance money. Not because the person didn't want to pay but because the insurance company wouldn't have otherwise.

Pardon my French but that woman sounds like some greedy fat *****.

"AH SHUCKS! I feel on my ass and broke my happy meal!"
"Time to sue someone because I was to chuncky to move!"

If she is not fat she is still a *****.

If the body parts were going fast enough to break bones then there wasn't any way she could have possibly gotten out of the way. Especially since she wouldn't have expected a person's body parts to hit her while she was waiting for a train, a thing people do all the time without incident.

Everybody on the escapist must be rich because they must be able to afford health for an injury that could last a lifetime, at her age, and require a huge amount of money to treat. The kid made an obviously stupid mistake by running across the tracks, especially if he knew the train was almost there, why should she have to pay for someone else's mistake.

It seems the problem here is the American type insurance system.
Get yourself some good old socialism and shit like this isn't a problem. You get hurt, even if it's partly your fault, insurance covers it, because insurance-people here aren't scum.

 

[Rynozeros]

It's sad that the guy died but he was reckless and caused physical harm in his death. Just because something you didn't expect to happen actually happens, doesn't mean you are free from liability.

It's like in work if you spill something. If you don't report it and make it clear there is a spillage, and then somebody trips and breaks a bone or two, you are liable for health and safety prosecution (at least in the U.K.) and compensation to the injured party.

And to anyone saying you need to be frail to fall over and break something, you are wrong. You can break bones and cause damage from a simple trip, never-mind something (quoted as a large portion in this link) hitting you to the ground at 30-70mph.

Not to mention the mental scarring.