This is why the US is going down the toilet

dteowner said:

All of which would go toward negligence by the transit authority. Our subject golddigger is not suing the transit authority. She's going after the guy. While I appreciate all the information you're bringing to the discussion, I don't know what your position is, JHW.

Click to expand...

Fine. Wall of text.

When I talk about an argument that can be made in someone's favor I'm not saying the argument is necessarily correct. I'm saying that based on the slim bits of information in subsequent articles I've found that there are new arguments to be made. There isn't enough here to say whether they'll be successful or refuted. Some of them may be very provably wrong.

I'll provide a summary, but again you're better off reading from primary source material rather than relying on me or bloggers to interpret and summarize them for you. My second hand interpretation is not somehow a better stopping point for your understanding than those crappy blogs and you shouldn't presume it is in any way except providing more direct sourcing. This is why I have been trying to include direct links to things like the ruling for the case and primary source news articles.

They had been cleared previously and it was determined they could not be considered a defendant in this suit. The suit may be amended later if the Illinois supreme court reverses the decision in Mrs Parks upcoming appeal. Waiting for a resolution of Mrs Park's case in hopes of pleading with the less sympathetic Merta as the defendant was not an option. The statute of limitations in Illinois on this sort of suit is 2 years; the incident occurred in 2008.

The ruling in the first Park case supersedes this plaintiff's ability to sue Merta over her injuries and her only option was to file suit against the only defendent still availible. If Merta was not negligent, then the argument that the late Park's choice to cross the tracks as he did has enough merit to be heard - this is not the same thing as saying it would ultimately be successful. If the appeal against Merta is successful then the second suit may be ammended to name them as a defendent.

So - what were they trying to get out of this considering it seems not improbable that the estate will be insolvent? They get to sue the people you think are ultimately responsible which they would have otherwise been entirely unable to do. The process of resolving Mrs Parks case will have taken about 4 years to resolve by the time it is done and the initial ruling compared to the 2 year statute of limitations.

Including Merta in the original suit would have been potentially worse. If they had sued Merta alone, Merta would have asked for a summary judgment. Using the finding of fault from the previous case the summary judgment would have been in their favor. The chances of a summary judgment where one plantiff appears to be attempting to sue a defendent for the same incident they were already found not to be at fault for would be very likely to be denied the appeal against Z's lawyer's inevitable requests that it be heard after the Park appeal if she wasn't named as a defendant. Basically since Mrs. Park lost her case, they had to sue her to have the best chance that her suit would be resolved favorably before theirs might run out of chances to be heard. In terms of Park's laweyer and Z's lawyer, cooperating in requesting scheduling that allowed for this was in both parties best interests.

Why didn't they sue both then? Merta would ask to for summary judgment or dismissal in-part; that they be dismissed as a party or for summary judgment. In either case - as they were dismissed in part - the only way to appeal for Z. would for that same judge to agree to write an an express written finding in support of that. That's actually sort of a problem in appealing complex cases in Illinois.

So what do I really think about this? Well after all that I KNOW that I do not have nearly enough first hand information to make sweeping moral judgments of the quality of the people involved. That would be undeserved self-righteous bullshit.

I think this looks like Z's lawyers might be counting on Park winning her appeal against Merta. The reason to sue her is not to get a cent from her but because its the only reasonable chance they have of getting their case against Merta heard ever. If they didn't do it then they would have very likely found themselves in a situation where the initial ruling made in favor of Merta resulted in them either running out of appeals up against the statute of limitations despite Park eventually winning her own appeal and showing that Merta was responsible for her son's death.

Was Merta was negligent? Are they now negligent but actually weren't at that time? I Park sounds like they have an argument to make that they were - and a stronger one than they did when their case was originally heard. That's why they're having their appeal heard - because the new information is enough to consider rehearing the argument. The argument that Zokhrabov could be looked at as negligent does make sense as well, but only if Merta really wasn't negligent.

I haven't found significant details on Merta's original defense as the reporting on this doesn't seem to keen to help explain their position. I hope they don't have much working in their favor and that might be biasing me into tending to beleive Park's case. I want Park's mom to win but I don't know if that represents the truth of what happened. Merta makes the convenient villian for the story - and they may very well be just that.

My optomistic hope is that Merta loses to Park. If that's the case then Zokhrabov will ammend their complaint to include Merta. Park would likely move to have the complaint against them specifically dismissed or request separate summary judgment. Since this situation will then strongly favor Zokhrabov over Merta - any difficulty relating to the ability to appeal will favor Zokhrabov and not Merta this time.

That's the "good ending" for this and it hinges on Park's case against Merta. Merta being found negligent and responsible for this whole mess is the result I'm sure most of us would want but it might not be the truth. There's no reason to think that Zokhrabov a gold digger though - well only if don't have any idea how this crazy shit works. It's a broken way to have to go about doing things but there aren't a lot of options.

Her lawyer probably doesn't talk to the press much and probably should avoid doing so - but what she's doing is probably the only way to even get the chance to make a case at all and not even necessarily against the family of the deceased. It makes for inflammatory headlines and self-righteous blog rage but there's a lot more here than fits in a blog post. I'd post all the links for this one but I think I'm done googling for you.

jhwisner said:

which suggests the warning signal is no longer in use

Click to expand...

In this case the boy's family should sue the railway company or whoever is responsible for that.

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.

dteowner said:

Nope. Wrong place, wrong time…shit happens. As a bystander, I'd have less standing. Like I said, though, I can clearly see the other side of that argument. So, in summation, I can see where people could side with the woman in question, but I don't. In the bigger picture, I still say this clearly demonstrates our overgrown need to assign blame and cash in.

Click to expand...

Legally, you have no less standing as a bystander.

Corwin said:

Interesting point; why not claim on your own insurance and then let your insurance company sue the estate or his insurance company if he had one?

Click to expand...

Isn't clear if she had insurance or not.

blatantninja said:

Legally, you have no less standing as a bystander.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree that it's the law, but I don't think a whole lot of what it means and how it gets used.

This was an accident and placing blame is pointless.

What happened to the woman was very unfortunate, and in a more civilised place - she would have received perpetual medical care related to the injuries, free of charge.

But sueing people who had nothing to do with the accident is in very poor taste - and I think it speaks volumes that it's possible to waste resources processing a case like this, after the facts have been established.

dteowner said:

I don't disagree that it's the law, but I don't think a whole lot of what it means and how it gets used.

Click to expand...

I find it very strange that someone that generally posts on the need for personal responsibility is against the person (via their estate) being held responsible for their actions just because it isn't 'nice.'

DArtagnan said:

This was an accident and placing blame is pointless.

What happened to the woman was very unfortunate, and in a more civilised place - she would have received perpetual medical care related to the injuries, free of charge.

Click to expand...

The US is quite civilized.

But sueing people who had nothing to do with the accident is in very poor taste - and I think it speaks volumes that it's possible to waste resources processing a case like this, after the facts have been established.

Click to expand...

You don't think the guy that intentionally crossed in front of a moving train had anything to do with the accident?

blatantninja said:

The US is quite civilized.

Click to expand...

If you're a barbarian, perhaps.

You don't think the guy that intentionally crossed in front of a moving train had anything to do with the accident?

Click to expand...

He's dead.

blatantninja said:

is against the person (via their estate) being held responsible for their actions

Click to expand...

I don't believe that an disembodied person can still be called a "prson".

I have a huge loical problem here.

Also, sueing dead persons feels so much … "medieval" to me …

DArtagnan said:

He's dead.

Click to expand...

And this is all that matters to me. You just cannot bring a person into a court building which is dead and buried !

blatantninja said:

I find it very strange that someone that generally posts on the need for personal responsibility is against the person (via their estate) being held responsible for their actions just because it isn't 'nice.'

Click to expand...

"Nice" is only a sidelight to the actual issue. You should know by now that I don't put any innate value on "nice", although I'm not above getting some mileage out of "nice" if it happens to land on my side.

You're allowing a butterfly effect into the equation. Where do you draw the line between direct action (for which I certainly push personal responsibility) and indirect reactions? You've got to draw that line somewhere or it gets ridiculous in a real hurry. In this case, and in general, I try to draw the line as close to the direct action as possible. It's an informed, but still arbitrary, judgment and every person will see it differently.

Put another way, which should be very familiar from many other arguments I've made… What is the action, and what are the reasonably predictable bad consequences? Action- cross the tracks, consequence- might get hit by a train and die. Body parts flying would have to be considered a secondary consequence and flying parts resulting in injury would have to be considered a tertiary consequence. If you consider every branch 50/50 (which clearly it isn't), you're still already down to 1/8. If we actually attempted to assign reasonable probabilities to the branches, we're down in the "shit happens" numbers for our result. Now compare that with a hypothetical where our track jumper was instead suicidal. With death already a foregone conclusion, body parts flying becomes a primary consequence (with higher probabilities, if we were figuring it) and flying parts resulting in injury becomes secondary. Using the same 50/50 (which it still clearly isn't) now you're sitting at 1/4. Thus, the bad consequence is twice as likely and therefore much closer to being a predictable result of the choice.

DArtagnan said:

If you're a barbarian, perhaps.

Click to expand...

Western Europe is no more civilized than the US. Just because we differ on a handful of things like the death penalty and socialized medicine does not make the US uncivilized. Don't be a drama queen.

He's dead.

Click to expand...

Which is why his estate and not him is being sued.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

I don't believe that an disembodied person can still be called a "prson".

I have a huge loical problem here.

Also, sueing dead persons feels so much … "medieval" to me …



And this is all that matters to me. You just cannot bring a person into a court building which is dead and buried !

Click to expand...

As I said above, which is why his estate is being sued. Assuming he had insurance or any assets, those still exist in the form of his estate.

blatantninja said:

Western Europe is no more civilized than the US. Just because we differ on a handful of things like the death penalty and socialized medicine does not make the US uncivilized. Don't be a drama queen.

Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that if you wish, but I don't agree. If that makes me a drama queen, so be it.

Note that I don't think Western Europe is particularly civilised either.

Which is why his estate and not him is being sued.

Click to expand...

Exactly, people who have nothing to do with the accident are being sued. Physical objects can't be sued.

If his insurance covered things like this, there wouldn't be a lawsuit happening.

dteowner said:

"Nice" is only a sidelight to the actual issue. You should know by now that I don't put any innate value on "nice", although I'm not above getting some mileage out of "nice" if it happens to land on my side.

You're allowing a butterfly effect into the equation. Where do you draw the line between direct action (for which I certainly push personal responsibility) and indirect reactions? You've got to draw that line somewhere or it gets ridiculous in a real hurry. In this case, and in general, I try to draw the line as close to the direct action as possible. It's an informed, but still arbitrary, judgment and every person will see it differently.

Put another way, which should be very familiar from many other arguments I've made… What is the action, and what are the reasonably predictable bad consequences? Action- cross the tracks, consequence- might get hit by a train and die. Body parts flying would have to be considered a secondary consequence and flying parts resulting in injury would have to be considered a tertiary consequence. If you consider every branch 50/50 (which clearly it isn't), you're still already down to 1/8. If we actually attempted to assign reasonable probabilities to the branches, we're down in the "shit happens" numbers for our result. Now compare that with a hypothetical where our track jumper was instead suicidal. With death already a foregone conclusion, body parts flying becomes a primary consequence (with higher probabilities, if we were figuring it) and flying parts resulting in injury becomes secondary. Using the same 50/50 (which it still clearly isn't) now you're sitting at 1/4. Thus, the bad consequence is twice as likely and therefore much closer to being a predictable result of the choice.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It is reasonable to expect that the bad consequences could extend past the death of the perpetrator of the action. Slamming on the emergency brake of a train, which is likely if the conductor sees the person, can cause serious injury to anyone standing on a train (had this happen on the subway once, saw a lady split her head open on a bar). Derailment is a real, those smaller, possibility. It's not important if the person could anticipate that part of their body could fly off and hit someone, what's important is that the person should have a reasonable expectation that in the event of an accident, there will be injuries, regardless of how they occur, to 3rd parties.

DArtagnan said:

Keep telling yourself that if you wish, but I don't agree. If that makes me a drama queen, so be it.

Note that I don't think Western Europe is particularly civilised either.

Click to expand...

So who is? You seem to have your nose pretty high in the air.

Exactly, people who have nothing to do with the accident are being sued. Physical objects can't be sued.

Click to expand...

Who is being sued that had nothing to do with the accident? And estate is not a physical object. An estate is an entity, similar to the way a corporation is an entity, and corporations most definitely can be sued.

blatantninja said:

So who is? You seem to have your nose pretty high in the air.

Click to expand...

There are no countries that qualify for my idea of civilization. However, the US is far behind most of Western Europe.

My opinion of human beings and their capacity certainly isn't high, but that doesn't exclude myself. I'm probably just more aware of the scope of my failings than most.

Who is being sued that had nothing to do with the accident? And estate is not a physical object. An estate is an entity, similar to the way a corporation is an entity, and corporations most definitely can be sued.

Click to expand...

People own whatever it is being sought. Effectively, people are being sued - and these people had nothing to do with the accident. You should fathom this by now.

DArtagnan said:

There are no countries that qualify for my idea of civilization. However, the US is far behind most of Western Europe.

Click to expand...

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

My opinion of human beings and their capacity certainly isn't high, but that doesn't exclude myself. I'm probably just more aware of the scope of my failings than most.

Click to expand...

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

People own whatever it is being sought. Effectively, people are being sued - and these people had nothing to do with the accident. You should fathom this by now.

Click to expand...

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.

The only reason people seem aghast at this is that it was his body that hit the lady. If he had driven a car in front of the train and parts of the car had hit the lady no one would have objected even if he had still died.

And as has been pointed out several times *he* is not being sued, his estate is being sued.

— from a web site —

What Is an Estate?

All the property that a person owns is part of his or her estate. An estate can include clothes, jewelry, tools, cars, musical instruments, a house, land the house is built on, cash, bank accounts, retirement accounts, stocks, bonds, and other items. After a person dies, his or her estate must be distributed.

How the estate is distributed is determined by several things: the will, the beneficiaries named (if any), the way the property is titled, any letter of instructions, and the laws of the state in which the person lived. Expenses of the estate, debts of the person who died, and estate taxes, if applicable, must all be paid. The remainder is divided among survivors. This dividing up of a person’s belongings is called “settling the estate."