This is why the US is going down the toilet

[JDR13]

His family is not being sued. They bear no legal liability what so ever. His estate is simply a collection of all his assets and liabilities.

Which is one reason I find the whole thing silly. It's a 58 year-old suing the estate of an 18 year-old. What is she hoping to get? Some Xbox games?

 

[blatantninja]

Which is one reason I find the whole thing silly. It's a 58 year-old suing the estate of an 18 year-old. What is she hoping to get? Some Xbox games?

Pron stash?

 

[BillSeurer]

Probably insurance money. And a few 18 YOs are actually quite wealthy.

 

[JDR13]

And a few 18 YOs are actually quite wealthy.

It's a shot in the dark I guess, but I highly doubt this particular 18 YO was wealthy. If that was the case, he wouldn't have been taking a train to begin with.

 

[BillSeurer]

I doubt she sued his estate "just in case" he was wealthy. It was for any insurance money.

 

[dteowner]

Based on the legal analysis supplied to us, she sued the estate just to keep a suit against Merta in play. Whether the estate (via the parents) is complicit with the legal contortion is open to wild guesses. There's just no way around the fact that our golddigger is going to great lengths to cash in.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the golddigger hasn't invested 2 years of legal fees in hopes of recovering the cost of her cast. If she's fronted her lawyer's fees, then the theory that she has to sue the estate because she doesn't have a pot to piss in to cover her medical fees pretty well gets torpedo'd. If the lawyer is working on contingency, I guaran-fucking-tee you that the roach isn't doing this for $10k worth of hospital bills.

 

[blatantninja]

It's a shot in the dark I guess, but I highly doubt this particular 18 YO was wealthy. If that was the case, he wouldn't have been taking a train to begin with.

Hey, I know lots of rich guys that take the train every day!

 

[BillSeurer]

dte, why do you keep disparaging her as a golddigger? You do know what that means don't you?

 

[zahratustra]

Because he is an ass. Let's recapitulate: woman was hit by body parts and suffered broken leg and wrist and, quite likely, psychological trauma due to the nature of the accident. She is/will be unable to work for a certain period of time and might have no insurance. But, according to dte, she should just suck it in and carry on with her life.

 

[dteowner]

Absolutely. All evidence points to it having the appropriate (if slightly unconventional, since they weren't in a relationship) connotations for the situation.

 

[dteowner]

Because he is an ass. Let's recapitulate: woman was hit by body parts and suffered broken leg and wrist and, quite likely, psychological trauma due to the nature of the accident. She is/will be unable to work for a certain period of time and might have no insurance. But, according to dte, she should just suck it in and carry on with her life.

I poked myself in the eye as I was wiping away the tears caused by your hurtful words. You obviously meant to be hurtful and my tears would be a reasonably expected outcome of your horrible actions. I've been unable to work for no less than 3 minutes. Clearly, you're at fault for my pain. Will you be covering the damages?

Please demonstrate the difference between your stance on the issue and my silly hypothetical. Or send me a check.

 

[jhwisner]

So, to summarize, our golddigger is pissing on the kid's grave in order to keep a suit against the deep pockets viable. Or is your hypothesis that the golddigger and the parents are working together on this to get at Merta, and the estate getting sued is just a cat's paw to put the deep pockets back in play after the legal system put them out of reach?

Either way, I go back to this being excellent evidence that folks will go thru all sorts of contortions and distortions to assign blame and cash in. I see nothing in the wealth of information that you've provided that would contradict that point, even if the point was prompted by a half-ass blog rather than legal records.

There is nothing to suggest she is a gold-digger either. The suit does not mention pain and suffering or mental anguish but, so far, only lists the direct injuries incurred as a result of the accident. You have no basis to say this besides your own self-righteous presumption and the sentiment on those half-assed blog posts.

Speaking of people talking out their asses about personal injury suits, I wonder how many people have seen the woman who was ultimately awarded $640,000 in the famous hot coffee case. Caution, despite being censored the image might be considered NSFW.

 

[BillSeurer]

Speaking of people talking out their asses about personal injury suits, I wonder how many people have seen the woman who was ultimately awarded $640,000 in the famous hot coffee case.

Yeah, that one really bugs me too. The verdict wasn't even so much about her rather horrific injuries as it was about McDonalds ignoring years of evidence they were serving their coffee too hot.

 

[blatantninja]

Yeah, as much as I despise frivolous lawsuits, the McDonald's one is not the best poster child for it.

 

[dteowner]

If you assign guilt based on the level of injury with a complete ignorance for the actions involved (which would have to be the case in order for you to assign culpability for a woman that dumped hot coffee on her hooha), you would have to agree that a suicide bomber's estate would have a claim against the makers of C4. Gonna file that one, gents?

 

[jhwisner]

Yeah, as much as I despise frivolous lawsuits, the McDonald's one is not the best poster child for it.

There is a misconception that frivolous lawsuits are far more common than they actually are. Of course, it's not like they don't happen as this list published by an injury lawyer directory service demonstrates:

A list of suits that injury lawyers think of as ridiculous - so you know they're pretty weird

I would place the blame in those cases on the judges who decided they had merit enough to go to trial. By allowing such ridiculous suits to go to trial these judges perpetuate the misconception of injury suits in general and feed the kinds of trollish people who puff them selves up by denigrating victims.

If you assign guilt based on the level of injury with a complete ignorance for the actions involved (which would have to be the case in order for you to assign culpability for a woman that dumped hot coffee on her hooha),

They did assign her partial culpability which reduced the overall damages. The rationale though was that with 700 existing complaints and instances of prior severe burns with no effort to address the issue that much of the blame lay with McDonalds. A family fast-food restaurant serving something in a flimsy cup whose contents could burn a small child so severely that it might kill them if spilled on them does seem to be negligent. One expects coffee to be hot but the decision stated that it is not reasonable to expect the coffee will be served so hot as to be able to cause 3rd degree burns in seconds. Mcdonalds is just lucky it was this woman who made this case and that this did not come about from coffee being spilled on someone's kid - they wouldn't have been able to fool the public into seeing the suit as being frivolous then.

you would have to agree that a suicide bomber's estate would have a claim against the makers of C4. Gonna file that one, gents?

No, stabilized modern explosives such as C-4 not only comes with very clear handling instructions but generally require specific conditions for detonation preventing accidental injury. The injury in this case was intended by the user and could not have been prevented by any reasonable means available to the manufacturer as it does kind of need to be able to explode; that's sort of what it does. This is not analagous to the coffee example because there is no reason coffee needs to be so hot and they had a long history of complaints and injuries demonstrating it was served at a dangerous temperature in flimsy cups.

You might wonder though - what if the C-4 was defective and exploded prematurely before the person could reach their target and so only killed themselves? In this case a judge who was not a moron would dismiss such a suit because the intended use by the deceased was to blow themselves up, the defect was not responsible for their death as it would have occurred even if there was no defect.

 

[dteowner]

I would place the blame in those cases on the judges who decided they had merit enough to go to trial. By allowing such ridiculous suits to go to trial these judges perpetuate the misconception of injury suits in general and feed the kinds of trollish people who puff them selves up by denigrating victims.

Which is exactly what happened in this case (thrown out), but you're all-in with the legal manipulations being used on appeal. Gotta make up your mind, doncha think?

 

[jhwisner]

Which is exactly what happened in this case (thrown out), but you're all-in with the legal manipulations being used on appeal. Gotta make up your mind, doncha think?

No but you should probably stop relying so heavily on analogy as a crutch in trying to understand individual complex cases. As I said many times I can not be certain that my speculation regarding the possible legal strategy used by the plaintiff's lawyer correct as there is simply not enough information availible.

If Merta is indeed not responsible and was not negligent then there is merit to the argument that Park was. This is not because someone always has to be to blame, but because the ruling in their prior case found them not to be responsible because the court believed Park's death was the result of his own recklessness despite any potential lack of care on Merta's part - hence their potential negligence and his own being closely linked. While I can not find information on how Merta argued this or if they even did - this may have merely be inferred by the judge - it does mean that the decision in Merta's favor decided that this was not a blameless accident. For the sake of the family, I hope they turn out to have gotten that wrong and some of the information suggests it is quite possible they did. Still, that may merely be wishful thinking on my part.

It is not unreasonable if someone's negligence causes injury to others that their estate could bear the liability even if their negligence also causes their own death. The judge has only ruled that Park can be held liable - not that he is. That will be argued when the lower court the case as been returned to hears arguments. If it turns out that Merta was mistakenly found not to be liable then that changes the facts of the case - as long as the prior ruling stands it is treated as fact in the courts.

What I hope happens and postulate optimistically may happen - park winning against Merta and the suit against them amended - is not the same as saying what will happen. I'm also not saying Merta can be clearly said to be responsible based on what we have; I've specifically said this and mentioned that judging them so without having access to their defense would be presumptuous. I'd just rather see that than the family having to hear that their dead son was ruled to be at fault for how they died - but that may turn out to be the truth.

 

[DArtagnan]

I figured as much. You have a pretty screwed up concept of what civilized means then.

Whatever you say.

Not being perfect doesn't make anyone or any country uncivilized.

This is relevant because?

Which people had nothing to do with the accident? The estate does not belong to any individual until it goes through probate. It is in a legal purgatory at this point. The liability of the person that caused the accident transcends to the estate by law.

Maybe its a language thing and you don't understand what an estate is. His family is not being sued. They bear no legal liability what so ever. His estate is simply a collection of all his assets and liabilities.

I don't have too much trouble with the language, though you apparently do. His assets wouldn't end up in space or in a vacuum. They would go somewhere to some people who has a claim on them - or I guess to the state, or however your law works over there. But they most certainly wouldn't go nowhere to no one.

Again, effectively, people who have nothing to do with the accident would end up with less than they would have otherwise.

Calling it "the estate" doesn't change a single thing about the fact that people ARE involved.

 

[zahratustra]

I don't have too much trouble with the language, though you apparently do. His assets wouldn't end up in space or in a vacuum. They would go somewhere to some people who has a claim on them - or I guess to the state, or however your law works over there. But they most certainly wouldn't go nowhere to no one.

Again, effectively, people who have nothing to do with the accident would end up with less than they would have otherwise.

Calling it "the estate" doesn't change a single thing about the fact that people ARE involved.

You do have problem with language (or with the concept) DArtagnan whatever you admit it or not. The claim is made again DECEASED MAN'S estate. And he had everything to do with the accident. Dead man's family assets are NOT part of his estate so they would NOT end up "with less than they would have otherwise".