This is why the US is going down the toilet

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/130874/dead_teen_sued_by_victim

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.

Click to expand...

It's about time to start shooting the lawyers.

I certainly hope the court will not rule in her favour.

Isn't US a place in which you have to pay for medical bills yourself? In that case I see nothing wrong here.

Generally not a fan of lawyers, but I don't think this is the case to use for shooting them. Here's why:

1) The woman was injured in this accident and has resulting medical bills ( she broke both her leg and wrist)
2) The man (and yes he was a man, he was 18) was negligent (his running across the tracks was the direct cause of not only his death but the injuries to the woman)
3) The woman has three options:
A) Cover the medical bills herself (which she may or may not be financially able to do)
B) Sue Amtrak, but she would likely lose as Amtrak has been cleared of fault (I'm sure some lawyer could find a way to find fault if they really wanted to though!)
C) Sue the estate of the man, who was at fault.

Going with C, she's most likely trying to recover damages from any insurance the man may have had (home and renter's policies often cover things that don't happen at the residence IIRC). Even if he didn't have insurance, who would you have cover the costs of her medical bills?

Now if she goes for the big score for 'emotional damage' or some crap like that, well, I might side with you then!

JemyM said:

Isn't US a place in which you have to pay for medical bills yourself? In that case I see nothing wrong here.

Click to expand...

Correct, or your insurance company (minus your deductible).

Ohh and back to the article. The author needs to check his facts:

And to think that they have to endure a woman nitpicking her way into their bank accounts is disgusting.

Click to expand...

She isn't doing ANYTHING to the family's bank accounts. It's only the estate of the dead man.

blatantninja said:

Now if she goes for the big score for 'emotional damage' or some crap like that, well, I might side with you then!

Click to expand...

And you think she doesn't have a case for "emotional damage" when she was hit and injured by deceased's body parts? If anybody has a case, she does!

It's reflective of our overarching need to place blame and cash in. It wasn't a suicide attempt, so it's the very definition of accident. While it would be tremendously tasteless, there might be a thread of justification had it been a suicide since you'd have an injury coming from someone else's willful decision. Simply doesn't apply in this case. In accidents, sometimes people will be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Such is life. That's why they call them accidents. Buck up and deal with it; don't try to cash in on someone's grave.

dteowner said:

It wasn't a suicide attempt, so it's the very definition of accident.

Click to expand...

When driver causes an accident he/she didn't plan for it to happen either. Yet he/she is still liable.

dteowner said:

It's reflective of our overarching need to place blame and cash in. It wasn't a suicide attempt, so it's the very definition of accident. While it would be tremendously tasteless, there might be a thread of justification had it been a suicide since you'd have an injury coming from someone else's willful decision. Simply doesn't apply in this case. In accidents, sometimes people will be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Such is life. That's why they call them accidents. Buck up and deal with it; don't try to cash in on someone's grave.

Click to expand...

Walk around with broken leg and wrist?

JemyM said:

Walk around with broken leg and wrist?

Click to expand...

Yep, according to dte it was her choice to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact that it was dead guy's choice to cross where/how he did is, apparently, less important.

BTW I was also quite disgusted by woman's actions at first. But than I have thought about it…

zahratustra said:

And you think she doesn't have a case for "emotional damage" when she was hit and injured by deceased's body parts? If anybody has a case, she does!

Click to expand...

I have no doubt she probably has some emotional damage. I just don't think that monetary damages should be awarded in just about any emotional damage claim.

dteowner said:

It's reflective of our overarching need to place blame and cash in. It wasn't a suicide attempt, so it's the very definition of accident. While it would be tremendously tasteless, there might be a thread of justification had it been a suicide since you'd have an injury coming from someone else's willful decision. Simply doesn't apply in this case. In accidents, sometimes people will be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Such is life. That's why they call them accidents. Buck up and deal with it; don't try to cash in on someone's grave.

Click to expand...

So if you are involved in an auto accident where the other driver is 100% at fault, but dies in the accident, would you then cover your own bills and damages?

blatantninja said:

I just don't think that monetary damages should be awarded in just about any emotional damage claim.

Click to expand...

But it's not just "any" emotional damage claim. Ever though of PTSD?

zahratustra said:

But it's not just "any" emotional damage claim. Ever though of PTSD?

Click to expand...

Yes, but that is a medical issue. I have no issue with covering medical treatment for something like PTSD. Awarding a person $500k on top of treatment costs just because, I have a big problem with that.

In Japan if you commit suicide by jumping in front of a train, your family is obligated to pay a fee of $100 million yen.

zahratustra said:

BTW I was also quite disgusted by woman's actions at first. But than I have thought about it…

Click to expand...

So was I.

blatantninja said:

Awarding a person $500k on top of treatment costs just because, I have a big problem with that.

Click to expand...

I agree but I also remember seeing (while ago) CCTV footage of public transport buss crash in Chicago. Injured were evacuated through one door while people climbed in through another so they could claim to be victims too. Everybody seems to have their own version of what "land of opportunity" means?

I think this says a different bad thing about the way world in general is heading and not what the OP seems to infer. The highly judgmental posts found flooding various blogs and condemning this women do so based largely on speculation and worse-than-second-hand information from the original story. The suggestion that she is or would sue for emotional distress or pain and suffering is purely speculative and based on solely on the attitudes and prejudices found in those sites' comment sections and inserted into the chain of highly editorialized blog posts and news digests which eventually link back to an original news report. That such strong and venomous opinions are easily formed based on opinion blogs referencing opinion blogs without half of them bothering to find the original article let alone the readily available full appellate decision seems the more serious problem.

Here is the original article. The link above points to a blog post which cites another news digest blog post which summarized and cited the tribune article and another blog post also summarizing the tribune article.

Additional information can be gleaned from the full apellate finding here. This includes facts left out of the chain of summaries and blog posts as well as the original article - such as the fact that the station operator sounded the warning alarm in an attempt to get Park to get off the tracks and that view of the oncoming train was not obstructed and that the sole fault Park's for not turning his head to look before crossing.

That mistress is nuts. She's the very similitude of Countess Bathory. That boy did such a stupid thing to run across, when the train was passing by, and now this boy paid for its stupidity.

For me it's enough and even if he dies, I'd let it go, since it's his own fault.

Whoever settled like this, he shall sleep like this.(If I remember well this idiom).

blatantninja said:

So if you are involved in an auto accident where the other driver is 100% at fault, but dies in the accident, would you then cover your own bills and damages?

Click to expand...

Not the same situation, although I'll admit there's a judgment call hidden in that. With the cars, you're an active participant in the situation. This is a bystander, only tangentially related to the event itself. The hidden judgment lurking in there is that bystanders have less standing than active participants, and I'll willingly admit that's open to debate.