Dead Teen Sued for Losing Control of Flying Body Parts

TITAN126

I love the inter-highway
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
5,445
Reaction score
1,261
Points
113
I don't want to live on this planet anymore...

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_n...e=outbrain&utm_content=outbrain&quick_picks=1

You think you've heard it all until I tell you that an appeals court in Illinois recently ruled that a woman is allowed to sue a dead teen's estate for injuries caused by his flying body parts. The 18-year-old boy was running across the Amtrak tracks to catch another train but didn't make it -- he was hit by an oncoming train going 70 mph and his body was torn apart by the force and flung onto a nearby passengers' waiting platform. The woman, 58, was struck by a sizable chunk of the boy's body and was knocked to the ground, breaking her leg and wrist. The court ruled that the boy's death was "reasonably foreseeable" and that his estate can be held responsible for his negligence.

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 can't say that my first or even fiftieth instinct after being pummeled to the ground by half of a bloody torso would be to raise my fist in the air and declare that whoever had the nerve to let their body explode and land on me will most certainly pay in court. Even if my leg was shattered, I still can't imagine going after the dead teen's estate.

The family of the deceased has suffered enough -- their son was blasted by a train. It doesn't get much worse than that. And to think that they have to endure a woman nitpicking her way into their bank accounts is disgusting. It's not like this kid had millions -- what is she hoping to gain from this lawsuit?

It won't make her leg any better. I can't imagine it'd help her heal in any way, shape, or form. I don't think a normal person would feel good about suing for injuries caused by a dead teen's flying body parts. Yeah, he did something incredibly stupid, but I think he paid the price. He's dead. His body was blown to bits. No need to drive the point home with what seems like a frivolous, greedy, and hurtful lawsuit.

If you were in the injured woman's shoes, would you sue, too?

*NSFW*, but pretty funny:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rymJ2j0WEXM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
This lawsuit is too absurd for even Monty Python to dream up. All that I can say is that I am not surprised that the decision came from Illinois.:facepalm:
 
Do 18 year olds have estates? I'd guess not likely. Hope his parents didn't have to pay. Moronic situation.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
Do 18 year olds have estates? I'd guess not likely. Hope his parents didn't have to pay. Moronic situation.
Posted via Mobile Device
Fortunately (I presume) that at 18 he is an adult and therefore his folks should be off the hook.
 
Have to speak a bit for my line of work. As macabre as this seems, it's not at all legally strange. The deceased in auto accidents are routinely sued if there negligence caused other injuries. This is much more grotesque, obviously, but assume the lady suing IS seriously injured, If she sues the railroad (they are probably co-defendants, btw), they will defend by saying they weren't negligent, the dead kid was.

This is actually pretty straightforward, however grotesque and unseemly it seems.

Now I'm in for it. :coffee:

Cheers, BostonTim
 
This lawsuit doesn't have any legs to stand on... :coffee:
 
You guys are seriously ****ed up and make me laugh.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
Have to speak a bit for my line of work. As macabre as this seems, it's not at all legally strange. The deceased in auto accidents are routinely sued if there negligence caused other injuries. This is much more grotesque, obviously, but assume the lady suing IS seriously injured, If she sues the railroad (they are probably co-defendants, btw), they will defend by saying they weren't negligent, the dead kid was.

This is actually pretty straightforward, however grotesque and unseemly it seems.

Now I'm in for it. :coffee:

Cheers, BostonTim

If you were asked to represent this woman of 58, would you take the case? Or would you tell her that the family of a young man had suffered enough and she should let it rest?

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't rely on lawsuits like these to pay my bills, but my instinct is that if I were a lawyer, I would turn down this job. At least I hope I would.
 
Have to speak a bit for my line of work. As macabre as this seems, it's not at all legally strange. The deceased in auto accidents are routinely sued if there negligence caused other injuries. This is much more grotesque, obviously, but assume the lady suing IS seriously injured, If she sues the railroad (they are probably co-defendants, btw), they will defend by saying they weren't negligent, the dead kid was.

This is actually pretty straightforward, however grotesque and unseemly it seems.

Now I'm in for it. :coffee:

Cheers, BostonTim

I was thinking the insurance companies are probably behind this. The When you put in a claim for treatment of injuries, the health insurance company generally asks you for information on how, when where the injury occurred. That's so they can go after some other party for negligence.

I'm not a lawyer but I bet almost all of these get settled between the insurance companies without going to court.
 
I would probably hire Tommy Floramo's as my attorney (where the meat falls right off of the bone).:insane:
 
If you were asked to represent this woman of 58, would you take the case? Or would you tell her that the family of a young man had suffered enough and she should let it rest?

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't rely on lawsuits like these to pay my bills, but my instinct is that if I were a lawyer, I would turn down this job. At least I hope I would.
I think you've underestimated what a bunch of scum lawyers are for the most part. If they can make money on a case, generally they'll take it, regardless of how ridiculous it is.

Have to speak a bit for my line of work. As macabre as this seems, it's not at all legally strange. The deceased in auto accidents are routinely sued if there negligence caused other injuries. This is much more grotesque, obviously, but assume the lady suing IS seriously injured, If she sues the railroad (they are probably co-defendants, btw), they will defend by saying they weren't negligent, the dead kid was.

This is actually pretty straightforward, however grotesque and unseemly it seems.

Now I'm in for it. :coffee:

Cheers, BostonTim

It's interesting because you can make an argument for either side in the case. On one hand, it's not fair that this woman got injured and hit with all these hospital bills. On the other, dragging the incident out and making the family of the dead teen pay for her bills sucks too. He was legally an adult and capable of making his own decisions, why should they have to pay for his poor decision-making? I'm just wondering why the woman's insurance isn't covering her bills. Aren't incidents like these why you pay for insurance?
 
It was probably her insurance company's idea to sue in the first place.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
It was probably her insurance company's idea to sue in the first place.
Posted via Mobile Device
There's no way for us to know (without intimate knowlege) who's behind the suit. But as you and DKM suggest, insurance companies have what are called subrogation rights. That means that when you file a claim with your insurance company they either are or are not obliged to pay you (and they will find anyway posiible not to for the most part), but when they pay you they are also acquiring your alternate rights to have sued some other responsible party, and to use your name in the bringing of the suit. So the Lady may have sued directly or she may have received payments from her insurance and they may be suing in her name. As for Titan's Q. "Aren't incidents like these why we pay for insurance? the answer is not exactly. They make it easier for us to be made whole after an unexpected loss, but the result is far more litigation than in an insurance free world due to the expense and uncertainty of litigation.

Cheers, BostonTim
 
Back
Top