Dead Teen Sued for Flying Body Parts

[ConstantErasing]

Logically by the letter of the law, it makes sense. And yeah there is something to be said for it, I mean it wasn't her fault she was injured. It's just that it is a totally heartless thing to do. I'll be honest, if I was the family of the dead kid, I would be considering giving her some much more serious injuries to complain about.

 

[CrystalShadow]

3) I don't know if you've been to an ER room in a hospital recently for a serious injury, but its rather expensive. Think thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars, made up of multiple bills from many companies and individuals including the ambulance company. The processing and appeals and consolidation of the bills and getting insurance approval for each and every one of them takes months if not years. So yeah, I'd sue too.

That's pretty much proof of why 'user pays' healthcare, even with insurance, is a messed up idea. Being badly injured is horrible enough without having to worry about how you're going to pay for the treatment you can't do without...

Oh well. I don't know what to say about that. I'm just disturbed by people actually wanting to copy the absurdly broken US healthcare system...

 

[CrystalShadow]

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.

Yes, but the two are not mutually exclusive. You can get private insurance in just about every country that has a public health system.

For that matter, I had an accident in Australia, I needed stitches, and I had that done within 10 minutes of getting to hospital too. And that didn't cost me anything personally. (obviously, it's paid for with taxes. But that's not the same thing.)

We were in a car crash at some point too... They didn't waste time with that either.

Meanwhile, in the UK, which is a slightly different, and perhaps somewhat more strained system, it takes ages to get an appointment for something which isn't an emergency, (like, 1 to 2 months), but if it's something serious that needs immediate care you aren't left waiting around for hours either.

Public healthcare and being made to wait aren't a given. (Though I have to say listening to financial arguments about the NHS is annoying. The NHS is pretty much the cheapest healthcare system as a fraction of GDP of any western nation. The US's is the most expensive - And the actual effect it has on people's health is less useful, even for the wealthy that can afford the best of the best.)

 

[Stalydan]

Snip

Okay, thanks for clearing pretty much all of it up.

Still, I find it weird that the woman wouldn't have health insurance. I would think that at old age, it would be more important to have it than somebody who was young. Especially if you were to fall ill or break a bone. Obviously this case couldn't be predicted but it's common to hear about an elderly person falling and breaking a bone.

On the last note though, I'm largely aware that you can get health insurance in pretty much every country and it's good that there's that option open for people who can afford it. But it seems to be the only way that the US Health Care System works under. Plus, it's common hear about insurance companies turning down applications and funding of treatment. It's by no means a perfect system but neither is socialised health care. It has it's problems but if people were willing to have a tax increase, they could benefit from it in the long run if they became ill as they could choose to give up their insurance policy.

 

[Edible Avatar]

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.

The U.S. currently can't afford it. Only when we pull out of NATO and 100+ countries will we be able to afford it.

...and we'll need a moderate president with a brain.....and a lobby-free congress.....

Ya know what, we'll have to get back to you on this.

 

[Buizel91]

I suppose if the woman who was injured was your mother, you'd feel slightly angered that someone's reckless behavior resulted in her suffering a broken wrist, broken leg, and hefty hospital bill.

Well here in the UK, I would be a little annoyed at the dude, but to see someone actually die? it would be horrifying, sure i'd be trying to help my mum, but hell, someone just died.

The LAST thing that would go through mind would be "SUE, SUE"!

Although here in the UK we don't sue because someone hits the back of your foot with a trolley -.-

For you Americans it may not seem that bad, but here in the UK, it's kind of a shock...

 

[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.

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.

Also not only was her original claim reasonable, its only ignorance of the case that makes people think the McD case was a frivolous lawsuit. People sighting that as an example need to take 60 seconds and google the case. McD was absolutely liable. If she had ingested the drink instead of spilling it her injuries would have been even more serious as she would have had 3rd degree burns in her mouth and throat. The coffee was at a completely unsafe temperature due to a really stupid McD policy which assumed you would drink the coffee with 2 creamers after 5-10 minutes and they wanted it piping hot at that time. As served, it would have seared anyone. It's pretty much the definition of negligance on McD's part.

Actually, it's not just cream that cools down coffee, it's pretty much everything. Cream, sugar, stirring, moving it around. There's so much you can do with it before you drink it, it's actually just about the right temperature. Plus, serve coffee are anything less than 80-90*c, if loses some of the flavour. It's really more about quality control of the drink than anything else.

I can't really sympathize with anyone with anybody who would complain that the coffee is too hot if they drank it straight, a second with the steam near your face or even just holding the cup should tell you if the drink is too hot. This woman was unfortunate in that she spilt it on cotton pants which absorbed it and caused third-degree burns to a fair bit of her lower body. But I myself think she was partly at fault with the accident for putting the coffee between her legs to pour in cream and sugar. It's a dangerous thing to do. I'd have suggested that she should have put in on a flat surface and poured it in there.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

Lawl, Amerikaner...

Honestly, shouldn't there be a point where the court just says "No. You can't do that" or something? It's like one of those "Americans sue everything"-jokes, just exceptionally less fun considering it's real.

In defense of the woman, being hit by a flying body part must have been pretty fucking emotionally scarring. And the fact it was due to severe negligence on the teen's part does give valid reason for her to get some compensation.

Perhaps, it's not the most pleasant experience to be had... But surely, there are better methods for her to deal with that than to sue her way out of it? And yes, being struck by another person's disloged arm and getting injured as a result could perhaps be reason enough for some compensation, but it's exceptionally tasteless to drag that teenager's parents in court like it's all their fault.

It was the kid's own bloody fault, yes, but it's a nasty way to loose a relative, and if you have a modicum of tact in your body, you'd at least let them bury the poor chap before demanding they show up in court.

Pretty much this. I can understand that you would want compensation due to serious injuries and that is fair but when you consider the fact that A) it's probably not reasonably foreseeable that being hit by a train will cause a piece of your body to fly about 100 feet away from the tracks unless you know a certain amount about physics, B) that the injury came about as a result of the negligence of the victim and not his family and C) that this old woman is essentially suing this family for their own son dying horribly well... whichever way the case goes an act of injustice will be committed.

Hmm.......

 

[BRex21]

Yes, but the two are not mutually exclusive. You can get private insurance in just about every country that has a public health system.

For that matter, I had an accident in Australia, I needed stitches, and I had that done within 10 minutes of getting to hospital too. And that didn't cost me anything personally. (obviously, it's paid for with taxes. But that's not the same thing.)

We were in a car crash at some point too... They didn't waste time with that either.

Meanwhile, in the UK, which is a slightly different, and perhaps somewhat more strained system, it takes ages to get an appointment for something which isn't an emergency, (like, 1 to 2 months), but if it's something serious that needs immediate care you aren't left waiting around for hours either.

Public healthcare and being made to wait aren't a given. (Though I have to say listening to financial arguments about the NHS is annoying. The NHS is pretty much the cheapest healthcare system as a fraction of GDP of any western nation. The US's is the most expensive - And the actual effect it has on people's health is less useful, even for the wealthy that can afford the best of the best.)

My stitches didn't cost me anything either, I travel for work and have corporate health insurance. What i'm saying is that the quality of care in American hospitals particularly in low priority areas and diagnostic testing is by far superior to any single payer system i have ever seen, and i have had the, possibly unfortunate, opportunity to see a few different ones. Chances are what your best experience in an E.R. in Australia (I am guessing here as I never managed to injure myself in Australia although i did get stuck in a spider web) is comparable to an ordinary day for someone with good insurance in the USA.
The issue isn't that national healthcare systems don't work, they do, quite effectively for everyone. There is however a very valid debating point that in a single payer system like Canada and many European countries expects people in higher income brackets to pay more for the same service. Essentially switching to a system like Canada would result in poorer care for them. There IS a reason wealthy people from all over the world flock to the US for surgeries and treatments. However I am not arguing that this is CORRECT, I think its pathetic that a first world nation like the USA does not have public healthcare, and yes they let nearly 50,000 people die every year because they don't have the money to buy treatment which in itself is sick HOWEVER: I know for a fact that Australia has had hallway medicine issues, uses a public private partnership system that unfairly distributes resources to wealthier regions and deals with a chronic shortage of doctors. It is hardly the ideal system you are making it out to be, and certain Americans prevent change as they know they are better off with the status quo.

that this old woman is essentially suing this family for their own son dying horribly

NO! SHE IS NOT! WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP SAYING THIS!

 

[godofallu]

Makes sense to me. He caused damage so he should have to pay for that damage.

Just because you're dead doesn't mean you can't pay. It just means that you don't give a damn about having to pay.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

....

Huh?

Say, everyone is arguing over who is wrong here, the dead teen or the old kook.

Has it ever occurred to you that if you saw a limbless torso flung across my yard towards you I think you kinda deserve those broken limbs.

...

Wait, I phrased that wrong: She saw a large limbless torso flung over her fence and onto her. Why didn't she dodge?

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

A lot of callous remarks for the dead teen here. I realize that what he did was not very smart, but the way that the woman is handling this doesn't show much thought either.

People are so quick to say, "legally she has the right" and "US medical bills are ridiculous", yet they seem to be missing the point.

This happened 3 years ago.

Whatever money she makes off of this 18 year old's estate is not going to cover legal costs, let alone medical bills.

She's really digging herself a bigger financial hole by continuing to press this issue.

She'll get a legal bill that's going to have her realize that appealing the original verdict wasn't the best financial choice, especially when suing the estate of an 18 year old.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Makes sense to me. He caused damage so he should have to pay for that damage.

Just because you're dead doesn't mean you can't pay. It just means that you don't give a damn about having to pay.

This happened 3 years ago, she's going to have to worry about legal fees rather than medical fees at this point.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

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.

Also not only was her original claim reasonable, its only ignorance of the case that makes people think the McD case was a frivolous lawsuit. People sighting that as an example need to take 60 seconds and google the case. McD was absolutely liable. If she had ingested the drink instead of spilling it her injuries would have been even more serious as she would have had 3rd degree burns in her mouth and throat. The coffee was at a completely unsafe temperature due to a really stupid McD policy which assumed you would drink the coffee with 2 creamers after 5-10 minutes and they wanted it piping hot at that time. As served, it would have seared anyone. It's pretty much the definition of negligance on McD's part.

Actually, it's not just cream that cools down coffee, it's pretty much everything. Cream, sugar, stirring, moving it around. There's so much you can do with it before you drink it, it's actually just about the right temperature. Plus, serve coffee are anything less than 80-90*c, if loses some of the flavour. It's really more about quality control of the drink than anything else.

I can't really sympathize with anyone with anybody who would complain that the coffee is too hot if they drank it straight, a second with the steam near your face or even just holding the cup should tell you if the drink is too hot. This woman was unfortunate in that she spilt it on cotton pants which absorbed it and caused third-degree burns to a fair bit of her lower body. But I myself think she was partly at fault with the accident for putting the coffee between her legs to pour in cream and sugar. It's a dangerous thing to do. I'd have suggested that she should have put in on a flat surface and poured it in there.

This^^, Also there was a case in London with the exact same circumstances. It was thrown out of court, so not every numbskull who sues wins thankfully. Coffee is made to be hot putting it between your legs without a lid on it is negligent behaviour.

 

[crop52]

This is a fucking cartoon.

 

[godofallu]

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.

Also not only was her original claim reasonable, its only ignorance of the case that makes people think the McD case was a frivolous lawsuit. People sighting that as an example need to take 60 seconds and google the case. McD was absolutely liable. If she had ingested the drink instead of spilling it her injuries would have been even more serious as she would have had 3rd degree burns in her mouth and throat. The coffee was at a completely unsafe temperature due to a really stupid McD policy which assumed you would drink the coffee with 2 creamers after 5-10 minutes and they wanted it piping hot at that time. As served, it would have seared anyone. It's pretty much the definition of negligance on McD's part.

Actually, it's not just cream that cools down coffee, it's pretty much everything. Cream, sugar, stirring, moving it around. There's so much you can do with it before you drink it, it's actually just about the right temperature. Plus, serve coffee are anything less than 80-90*c, if loses some of the flavour. It's really more about quality control of the drink than anything else.

I can't really sympathize with anyone with anybody who would complain that the coffee is too hot if they drank it straight, a second with the steam near your face or even just holding the cup should tell you if the drink is too hot. This woman was unfortunate in that she spilt it on cotton pants which absorbed it and caused third-degree burns to a fair bit of her lower body. But I myself think she was partly at fault with the accident for putting the coffee between her legs to pour in cream and sugar. It's a dangerous thing to do. I'd have suggested that she should have put in on a flat surface and poured it in there.

This^^, Also there was a case in London with the exact same circumstances. It was thrown out of court, so not every numbskull who sues wins thankfully. Coffee is made to be hot putting it between your legs without a lid on it is negligent behaviour.

Nice triple post.

As far as the McD case goes I don't understand how you're not getting it. Coffee which is served too hot to drink. They might as well have been serving lava or liquid nitrogen.

Spilling the coffee doesn't magically remove the fact that the coffee was served too hot to consume, which is the entire point of the lawsuit.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

All I know is that I would not sue the family were I injured by the body parts.

The family just suffered a tremendous loss, I wouldn't want them to have to be constantly reminded of that by having to appear in court.

That said, the situation would be more difficult for me to reason if the scenario was like this.

Family A and B are in cars. There is a car accident, one of Family B is killed. Family B doesn't sue, they want to move on with their lives. Family A decides to sue Family B because of injuries and car damage. In that case the people are more directly involved in the accident, but it is also very emotional.

Or if the situation changes so that "One of Family A is killed instead. Family B (despite receiving injuries and damages) doesn't sue because they feel immense guilt for inadvertently causing the death of another. Family A on the otherhand decides to sue Family A for the wrongful death."

 

[crop52]

....

Huh?

Say, everyone is arguing over who is wrong here, the dead teen or the old kook.

Has it ever occurred to you that if you saw a limbless torso flung across my yard towards you I think you kinda deserve those broken limbs.

...

Wait, I phrased that wrong: She saw a large limbless torso flung over her fence and onto her. Why didn't she dodge?

His body was hit by a train with enough force to tear his body apart and send chunks flying through the air, and knock her off her feet. I'm pretty sure that those chunks aren't going to be particularly slow-moving. Also, if she was in her own yard minding her own business I don't think she would be on her guard, expecting something to come flying at her. Also (again) who's to say that she was looking in the direction of the chunk to even be able to see it coming?

Anyways, yeah she deserves some kind of compensation for her medical expenses, but this....this is goofy.