Dead Teen Sued for Flying Body Parts

[SaikyoKid]

I'm confused, are you saying that he shouldn't make up facts but then make up a slew of conditions to make this story incredibly one sided?

Also, don't assume just because there's a vocal majority that they're morally correct. The general populist thought Japanese concentration camps were a hot idea at the time and look at how morally correct those were.

That was the point I was trying to make... That its easy just to make shit up to try and make a point! That it doesn't necessarily make you right... It was response to when they did it to me earlier in the thread...

Oh, my apologies for misunderstanding you good sir. As you were then. *Tip of the hat*

(Really though, moral judgements based off of the bandwagon is pretty uncool.)

 

[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.

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.

Being 18, I doubt he really has a will or any belongings that she'd be able to take off him.

 

[DiMono]

The woman is an idiot.

Welcome to the United States.

 

[brainslurper]

Am I the only one that finds this entire situation to be pretty funny?

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I'm confused, are you saying that he shouldn't make up facts but then make up a slew of conditions to make this story incredibly one sided?

Also, don't assume just because there's a vocal majority that they're morally correct. The general populist thought Japanese concentration camps were a hot idea at the time and look at how morally correct those were.

That was the point I was trying to make... That its easy just to make shit up to try and make a point! That it doesn't necessarily make you right... It was response to when they did it to me earlier in the thread...

Oh, my apologies for misunderstanding you good sir. As you were then. *Tip of the hat*

(Really though, moral judgements based off of the bandwagon is pretty uncool.)

Thats true, but isn't that where morals come from? Moral are taught as you grow and experience things, so if something comes along that is borderline, but you beleive in one side, and so do most others then doesn't that mean that its based off of the consensuses moral teachings?

I don't know... I've just switched to nightshift and seem to be pretty irritable at the moment, most unlike me I assure you.. I got a bit defensive at times!

@ravensheart18- Apologies for getting personal there at the end buddy... Breaking out the end of my energy drink filled high (not that that should justify anything), and definately know I stepped over the line, and I am sorry about that! Felt threatened and did the age old trick of dropping into the horrible spiral of internet rage...!
You do make some good points, but I'm afraid I stick my my principle! I still think it's wrong...! And unless more facts are presented, I will also stick to my guns... So there!

 

[5ilver]

Your mistake was thinking anything decided in a court room is sane, reasonable, fair, etc. Courts are not there to help you, they are there to keep you in line (sort of) and make $$$.

 

[OldGus]

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.

Feel like expanding, as I'm helping out with an international probate at the moment, mostly on the translation end.

"His estate can be held responsible". These words are important. Namely the one starting with "E". In most countries, one's estate, up to and including life insurance, former possessions, land, bank accounts, etc., when not specifically divided between surviving loved ones (usually allowed after one's debts have all been paid,) will go to paying one's debts left over from life, or incurred as a direct relation to his/her death. Unless, for example, a loan contract has a specific clause absolving liability (saying you are not responsible for something anymore) after death, that debt still needs paying. In simpler terms, her suing his estate is her saying, "I am entitled to some of the money from that dead guy because he owes me money."

In a different example: A guy dies with no heir, no will, and no one clearly responsible for his estate/his burial. A funeral home still has to collect and bury him. There's an electricity, gas, and water bill because he died in the shower with everything on. There's the monthly cable bill. There is also his last paycheck from his job, let's say a pension check, and an inheritance left to him by his parents when they died two years ago. The funeral home, utilities, and cable all get cuts of his paycheck, pension, and inheritance, no questions asked, specifically for the amount owed.

 

[OneOfTheMichael's]

The ones who do sue for such and incident...those who can.
Seriously though, who do you think you are? Someone who thinks their injuries are more important then the unfortunate death of a teen, and overlooks it so much that they attempt to sue his estate.

 

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

"We're sorry your son died in a horrific accident, however we're also suing you for said son's liability for injury of his corpse upon a bystander, injuring her also."


...Give them a break you swine, Im sure you can manage with a broken wrist and leg, their child just got torn asunder and you want money compensation? I've fallen off a 3 story buiding and walked away unscathed, my nan when she was alive slipped down a flight of stairs at 85 and just had a bruised leg. The fact she broke her leg and wrist from simply falling of a chair at 58? Jeez old people are getting stingier these days.

Derp.

I don't feel like going through the science of it all right now, but breaking bones at an advanced age can very easily be permanently disabling because cells don't really regenerate when you get old.

"We're sorry that you can't walk or write anymore, and can't afford medical care. I mean, you could sue to be able to afford treatment, but then you'd just be a huge fucking asshole, wouldn't you? Yeah, I thought so."

Before you Derp and make a fool, I am aware not everyone's bone structure is strong or agile.

 

[C2Ultima]

How the hell do you break a wrist and leg from a trivial little fall like that? Assuming you don't have brittle bone disease, and aren't 90 years old, that doesn't sound very likely.
And seriously, who sues a dead body? Selfish fucks.

Depends on the body part. Of course you may not be smart enough to calculate weight and impact velocity. How bad do you think you would be hurt if something weighing 50 pounds going at a velocity of around 60 miles an hour do to you. Even a healthy young person could be seriously messed up. That isnt including any kind of fall damage, that wouldnt be a mere slip and fall. It would be more of a forceful push, again velocity/weight.

Take into account the age of the person and perhaps her medical condition as well. At 58 your bones arent as strong as they used to be. At that point osteroperosis comes into account, where even small slips and falls can cause you to break a hip or wrist.

My mother is 55, she fell, and cracked her hip. She wasnt hit by an object of significant weight going at high velocity.

And you ask who sues ESTATES of people? (NOT bodies, as idiots say)..Well, everyone that is able. Just because you are dead doesnt clear you or any negligence or wrong doing. Just because the CEO's of Enron died and committed suicide, doesnt mean that their victims are just even more screwed.

Perhaps before typing stupid crap, you learn a little about weight and impact velocity. Also a little better understanding of human anotomy and the effects of age on the human body.

And also, if this happened to you, do you think YOU should pay thousands of dollars in medical treatment all because of the actions of some stupid twat. I would think not.

Your needlessly rude response isn't entirely without merit. At the time of immediately reading, I was taken aback at such a story, and was also preoccupied with what I was doing at the time, and therefore wasn't thinking particularly clearly about it. I apologize for that.

However that doesn't excuse your blatant rudeness. Perhaps we both should've thought a bit harder before posting.

 

[BRex21]

She just has the right to sue him, she is probably not going to win. By taking a deliberately dangerous action he acknowledged the risk of death and therefore any bodily harm it would cause to another person. BAM! *lawyered*

I can't even tell what you think you are talking about.
A woman is suing BECAUSE a man took deliberately dangerous action and hurt her, that's a very easy lawsuit to win. This, This that you have posted, is the opposite of lawyered, this is like, insane-homeless-guy-on-the-subway-rambling-ed.
Edit: got my quotes wrong, fixed it.

Except for our opposing outcomes that's exactly what I said unless understanding sentences is hard for you.

I can understand your sentence just not the logic involved. unless you can explain to me why someone would be less legally culpable because he was aware that he was taking a dangerous action and accepted the risks, I am gonna stand by my comment.
you see when you say "By taking a deliberately dangerous action he acknowledged the risk of death and therefore any bodily harm it would cause to another person," this breaks down to something called Mens Rea, or guilty mind.

[link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea]from Wikipedia on the subject[/link]

In such cases, there is clear subjective evidence that the accused foresaw but did not desire the particular outcome. When the accused failed to stop the given behavior, he took the risk of causing the given loss or damage. There is always some degree of intention subsumed within recklessness. During the course of the conduct, the accused foresees that he may be putting another at risk of injury: A choice must be made at that point in time. By deciding to proceed, the accused actually intends the other to be exposed to the risk of that injury.

this is essentially why the, uncharacteristically clear sentence stuck in your post contradicts your outcome, by accepting the risks he is legally responsible for the outcome, and can be made to pay.

The true tragedy is that he was 18, which chances are means she'll get a pittance and be stuck with the bills.

There is a term that flies around legal circles called being "judgment proof," what it means is someone who is too poor to pay the judgment against them and therefore even if you win, you get diddly squat. I would be willing to bet there is a life insurance policy, or education savings in play or something of the like, otherwise it would just be more legal bills.

 

[Beryl77]

Stupidity which is justified by court, sigh.
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.
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.

 

[Aprilgold]

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.

Thanks. I missed the 18 bit somewhere in the blog post. Look, blogs aren't sources, never use them, k OP?

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.

Am I the only one who finds it silly that he didn't even hear the train.

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.

All I can say is, see America, this is why Universal Health Care would rule.

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.

While I don't think its morally Wrong to sue the family when they just lost their son, I also don't think she has any other option. Whats she going to do? let it heal on their own? Last time I checked, that could lead to further medical complications.

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.

I agree. He shouldn't have been stupid, just plain and simple, I guess its natural selection at its finest? Maybe its a modern variation of Natural Selection. Either way, America, get a god damn Universal Health Care system, and also tell both parties to fuck off, especially the extremists of both parties.

Before you Derp and make a fool, I am aware not everyone's bone structure is strong or agile.

Everybody should at least. In theory, if you work out enough and get enough cardio / muscle stuff done, you will be very healthy when older, so its true to say that everybody has the capability of a old, agile body, just everybody is too lazy to reach for it.

 

[Megumi0505]

That would suck if his "estate" wasn't worth much at all. Then this would all look very silly. "I went through all this legal bullshit and all I got was a measly fifty bucks. That ain't even enough to cover the ambulance ride..."

 

[ccggenius12]

Discussions like this get weird when you realize that people might be misconstruing what a legal term really means and thus drawing erroneous conclusions.

I was being facetious, I thought the text in parentheses made that quite clear. I of course am against bringing lawsuits against inanimate objects and vast tracts of land.

 

[aprildog18]

Really sucks for the kid's family. They have to deal with a death and a possible lawsuit.

I guess it all boils down to how much the old person is going to sue. If it were enough to just pay the medical expense, then everything would be okay. But if she demands an unreasonable amount of money to fix up her injuries, that is just stupid. There's no way you can go on roller coaster rides in Disneyland at that age.

 

[FaceFaceFace]

Stupidity which is justified by court, sigh.
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.
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.

Why is it all or nothing? It's sad that an ADULT (18 years old) died (even though it was entirely his fault). It is also sad that an older woman broke two very important bones which, due to her age could take a very long, painful time to heal, possibly robbing her of the ability to live her life in any semblance of normalcy or to work and earn the money she needs in order to continue her now more difficult life. Is she better off than the dead kid? Yes. Does that mean she should just suck it up and live with her horrible situation and allow it to drive her into debt and bankruptcy so not only is she in a wheelchair but in a wheelchair living on the street? No, and since the US insurance system sucks, unless she gets money from the place that her insurance company itself probably told her she had to try and get it, she gets nothing. Realize also that she is suing the estate of a dead man. Isn't that arguably BETTER than suing a live person? No one who is still alive is actually losing anything (no, none of the money can come from the parents because he was an adult so they aren't responsible).

 

[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 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. And honestly, I find that sad. A kid gets hit by a train going 70 mph, some part of his body (by really unfortunate odds) is thrown into a woman and injures her. That's sad because now there's a grieving family and an injured person who has to pay medical bills.

Honestly, I could make this an argument for why the American Health Care System sucks. Badly. Mainly because it's treated more like a business than a health care system.