Family of man killed by train sued by woman hit by his flying body parts

[Nocturnes]

What a big bunch of crap. Ofcourse this is not justice. This is modern society in the US. Don't get me wrong, i love the US but this is just over the top. I visited the States for 4x now and each time I go there i'm stunned by the # of commercials of lawyers how to sue certain people. They just promote things to cross each border of humanity. Get back to real life!

There was a guy here who said:"what if you get hit by a car on accident and you hit somebody." This is totaly correct. God, i hate suck people who act like bloodsuckers and join our society. I rly hope she loses the case and has to pay every penny herself to the family she sued! To hell with that bloodsucker!

---------- Post added 2012-01-18 at 09:53 AM ----------

You don't hear anything bad about other countries because there's no reason for the media to report on it, not because it doesn't happen.

False, I have never, ever seen such things in Europe and i keep on track of these things. Never! America is letting things get out of proportion. From where i come from, lawyers don't have commercialspots on tv to have a job. They don't make a case, they get a case! That's justice, helping people when help is needed. If there isn't a fucking problem, don't go making one!

[Chaochamp]

False, I have never, ever seen such things in Europe and i keep on track of these things. Never! America is letting things get out of proportion. From where i come from, lawyers don't have commercialspots on tv to have a job. They don't make a case, they get a case! That's justice, helping people when help is needed. If there isn't a fucking problem, don't go making one!

Thank you for completely confirming my post...

The reason why you haven't heard of these things is because the global media is too focused on America. The only way you'd hear about things happening elsewhere is by being part of the case.

Also, I have a hard time understanding "If there isn't a fucking problem, don't go making one!" in this thread's scenario, the women suffered injuries that needed to be payed. She didn't cause them upon herself, so why should she have to pay? There is a problem, nothing is being created out of thin air.

[Santti]

I don't understand how it would be even possible to sue the family for this. Sueing the man (if he was still alive), now that I can barely understand. Besides, it's not like the man did it on purpose to fling his own bodyparts at the woman. God...

"If I time my suicide correctly, my torso will fling at that woman over there. That'll teach... somebody for messing me the way they did"!

[haxartus]

The reason why you haven't heard of these things is because the global media is too focused on America. The only way you'd hear about things happening elsewhere is by being part of the case.

No, not really. The local media is always focused on local cases. Nobody outside of America is actually interested what goes on there.

[Deleted]

She is actually suing the man's estate, not the family. Suing the estate of a deceased person is not something unique to the United States as a lot of the reactions to this case seem to suggest. The fact of the matter is he was negligent and caused this woman a great deal of harm. A broken leg in your late 50s is incredibly serious. Just because something worse happened to him while negligently causing this woman harm does not mean she now has to bear the cost of his negligence herself. The vilification of this woman is simply not fair.

I don't really get it to be honest. But for this example I'm assuming a few things so don't kill me for it. For one, that he lived alone or he didn't own the property he shared with hes parents, being only 18 and all.

Here, when someone dies, they take together all hes/her belongings and then they take off all the depts. If the result is less than 0, they just sell everything off and that's that. If it's more than 0, it's shared between relatives or according to the will. And that's pretty much it. Relatives, sprouses, friends etc. will never have to pay any depts the deceased left behind. They only might not get any inheritance or if they lived in a house owned by the deceased, used hes car or something, they might lose that too.

[aimziepoo]

That's not a case; you can't sue over random chance. He didn't intend for his body parties to be sent spinning at hundreds of miles of an precisely into an old lady further down the line who then happened to take a 1/1000000 chance injury from said detached flying body parts.

You make it sound like he was some evil mastermind villain who's plan was to terrorise people by committing suicide and attacking them with his severed flying limbs. It's not a reasonable case.

I don't know if you've ever been near railway tracks, but, there are plenty of warning signs stating that you are in danger, Do not cross the tracks, blah blah blah, furthermore, I didn't read anywhere that this kid was a small child incapable of deducing that you shouldnt be running accross tracks when you can visably see a train coming. It is irreverent if he "thought it was his normal train and it would stop" The fact is he took that risk and an innocent bystander was hurt due to his unfortunate lapse in judgement means she has every right to seek compensation for her medical costs.

[Djuntas]

Íf this is infact true....

Sorry but Im laughing so hard. I cant belive this is real, the wierdest news I'll ever hear this year for sure.

[Purlina]

I don't really get it to be honest. But for this example I'm assuming a few things so don't kill me for it. For one, that he lived alone or he didn't own the property he shared with hes parents, being only 18 and all.

Here, when someone dies, they take together all hes/her belongings and then they take off all the depts. If the result is less than 0, they just sell everything off and that's that. If it's more than 0, it's shared between relatives or according to the will. And that's pretty much it. Relatives, sprouses, friends etc. will never have to pay any depts the deceased left behind. They only might not get any inheritance or if they lived in a house owned by the deceased, used hes car or something, they might lose that too.

His estate could have some property, for example if the parents set up a trust fund in his name or bought him a car. He also could have a college fund, 18 is around the age you start college is the US.

[Deleted]

His estate could have some property, for example if the parents set up a trust fund in his name or bought him a car. He also could have a college fund, 18 is around the age you start college is the US.

The car, college fund or trust fund would probably be part of his estate.

[Purlina]

The car, college fund or trust fund would probably be part of his estate.

That's what I just said!

[Deleted]

That's what I just said!

Yes it is. I have no idea why I read it like you said they were separate. Anyway, you're probably correct regarding the stuff he might own.

[Kardezar]

that's hilarious, but also bullshit. Chances are the woman could have taken some action to mover herself out of the way of the body part. And it wasn't the impact of the body part that injured her; it was the dumb bitch falling on her ass.

[Scummer]

Money vs Morality sadly.
That woman's an insensitive bitch as far as I'm concerned and I'm shocked that people on this forum are comparing human error with in animate objects to what sadly was a living person. I cannot see the justice in this at all.

[Deleted]

The article is from the Daily Mail so I take it with a pinch of salt, but if there is some truth in this tabloid shocker, that's despicable and hopefully she'd be tsk, tsk!'ed out of the court room.

^^ THIS

people need to stop using the daily mail as a reliable source, it is honestly like the scummiest news paper in the uk

[Purlina]

Money vs Morality sadly.
That woman's an insensitive bitch as far as I'm concerned and I'm shocked that people on this forum are comparing human error with in animate objects to what sadly was a living person. I cannot see the justice in this at all.

If you look at it objectively why is it morally wrong? He caused serious bodily harm to this woman, she should be compensated for her medical bills.

[Deleted]

Money vs Morality sadly.
That woman's an insensitive bitch as far as I'm concerned and I'm shocked that people on this forum are comparing human error with in animate objects to what sadly was a living person. I cannot see the justice in this at all.

There's an accident on the road and you're walking on the sidewalk. Debree from the accident hits you and injures you.
Don't you think the person who caused the accident/caused the debree to hit you is liable for your injuries?

The fact that he died or that the objects causing injury were his body parts are not all that relevant to the question of who is liable.

[Deleted]

Do you not understand cases like that list of yours are happening all over the world? The only reason you know of them so well is because America is targeted by the media, and thus you know more about the countries faults.

You don't hear anything bad about other countries because there's no reason for the media to report on it, not because it doesn't happen.

I understand perfectly well that there are rotten apples in every basket, but it COULD also be that if cases like this are tried in most other parts of the western world, the judge would dismiss the case instantly and everyone apart from the plaintiff would find it absolutely ridiculous.... could it not?

[Purlina]

I understand perfectly well that there are rotten apples in every basket, but it COULD also be that if cases like this are tried in most other parts of the western world, the judge would dismiss the case instantly and everyone apart from the plaintiff would find it absolutely ridiculous.... could it not?

What's so ridiculous about it?

Her injuries where caused by the person she is suing (His estate in this case). If it's only to cover her medical bills I don't see anything wrong the case...