• Woman Sues Man Hit By Train For Injuries Caused By Flying Body Parts
    128 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;33955102][b]HES FUCKING DEAD.[/b] Meanwhile an innocent woman (described by you as a " prissy stuck up bitch" and a "dumb cunt") has to deal with broken bones, and the psycological trauma of being struck by someone elses half-dismembered body. And what about the psycological trauma of being seriously injured by a half-dismembered body that came flying at you, covering you in blood and guts and shit? I can't speak for every plan, but my health insurence only coveres a certain number of sessions with theripists. Making things up to shift the story, eh? You have no idea if she worked for a huge company with amazing medical coverage or the McDonalds down the street. Stop assuming these things to be true.[/QUOTE] "psycological trauma" If you can't even spell Psychological correctly and you're trying to argue for it i pity you "make up things to shif the story eh" UH. Don't call the kettle black when you're the pot. You're doing the same, Who said she was psychologically traumatized?
[quote]...ruling that "it was reasonably foreseeable" that the high-speed train would kill Joho and fling his body down the tracks toward a platform where people were waiting.[/quote] wut
ITT: people with double standards arguing Silly Americans, never putting yourself on other's shoes.
[h2]DEATH SENTENCE[/h2] Oh, wait...
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;33955102] Meanwhile an innocent woman (described by you as a " prissy stuck up bitch" and a "dumb cunt") has to deal with broken bones, and the psycological trauma of being struck by someone elses half-dismembered body.[/QUOTE] I referred to him, sarcastically, as the dumb cunt. I never referred to HER as the dumb cunt.
[QUOTE=smeismastger;33955158]ITT: people with double standards arguing Silly Americans, never putting yourself on other's shoes.[/QUOTE] Go read the posts, half of em aint from the US.
[QUOTE=smeismastger;33955158]ITT: people with double standards arguing Silly Americans, never putting yourself on other's shoes.[/QUOTE] It's putting yourself [I]in[/I] other's shoes, not on.
[quote] A state appeals court, after noting that the case law involving "flying bodies" is sparse, has disagreed, ruling that [B]"it was reasonably foreseeable" that the high-speed train would kill Joho and fling his body down the tracks toward a platform where people were waiting.[/B] Leslie Rosen, who handled Zokhrabov's appeal, said that while the circumstances of the case were "very peculiar and gory and creepy," [B]it ultimately was a straightforward negligence case[/B], no different than if a train passenger had been injured after the engineer hit the brakes. "If you do something as stupid as this guy did, [B]you have to be responsible for what comes from it[/B]," she said. [/quote] [h2]HE'S DEAD YOU FUCKING IGNORAMUS HOW DO YOU FORESEE YOUR OWN DEATH AND HOW IT'LL PLAY OUT CHRIST[/h2] Woo, justice.
[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;33955144]wut[/QUOTE] What's so hard to understand about that? Here's the Metra station: [img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/edgebrookmetro1.png[/img] Since he was struck by a southbound train, the impact occurred 100 feet north of the platform. He was most likely either east or west of the railroad tracks, and attempted to cross over the tracks without looking both ways to reach the platform. That person's body, when hit by a massive train travelling at over 70 miles per hour, has to go somewhere, doesn't it?
Train tracks should be treated like you would a gun- assume it's loaded, always. In the case of train tracks, it's on the pedestrian to assume the responsibility for crossing safely. The exception would be if there was a crossing sign and it gave an 'all clear' message even though a train was coming. So in this case I'd say the guy who got hit is at fault. It sounds like even his family is saying he knew a train was coming. They say he thought it was a slower Metra train, rather than the faster Amtrak. Who gives a shit? A train was coming and he knew it but he went for it anyways. The part I have a problem with is could he foresee that chunks of his body would hit someone? I don't know if I buy that, I've seen lots of videos of people getting hit by trains and they usually either disintegrate or go under the train. Very rarely does a chunk go flying and score a hit on someone else. Also, I'd say anyone standing near a train track assumes partial responsibility for being hit by debris from passing trains. If a train wheel kicks up a rock and the rock hits someone who is standing right there, is that the fault of the railroad?
[QUOTE=Vaught;33955317][h2]HE'S DEAD YOU FUCKING IGNORAMUS HOW DO YOU FORESEE YOUR OWN DEATH AND HOW IT'LL PLAY OUT CHRIST[/h2] Woo, justice.[/QUOTE] oh man I accidentally hit another car while I was driving, I totally didn't do it on purpose, I shouldn't have to pay for this!!!!!!! how did I know how it would play out??????? omg!
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;33954776]Not to sound insensitive, but I have to agree with the ruling. If the man is stupid enough to run across the tracks, he and his estate should be held responsible, even after death. It is not the woman's fault that his dismembered limbs hit her.[/QUOTE] Yeah, he's dead, so suing is kind of... silly, but how hard is it to stay off the tracks? That is an INSANELY easy thing to do, staying AWAY from the edge. I assume obviously it wasn't the intent, but come on... 5-10 feet away from the tracks is the best way to be perfectly, 100% safe. then again, imagine how fucked up your week will be when you get hit by a rouge arm or head, Jesus Christ, that would be absolutely terrifying. [QUOTE=Vaught;33955317][h2]HE'S DEAD YOU FUCKING IGNORAMUS HOW DO YOU FORESEE YOUR OWN DEATH AND HOW IT'LL PLAY OUT CHRIST[/h2] Woo, justice.[/QUOTE] Woo, shit post. Come on, how the hell do you not see that a train is [B]DEADLY[/B] and you should always stay 5-10 feet away from the tracks.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33955131]"psycological trauma" [b]If you can't even spell Psychological correctly and you're trying to argue for it i pity you[/b] "make up things to shif the story eh" UH. Don't call the kettle black when you're the pot. You're doing the same, Who said she was psychologically traumatized?[/QUOTE] You must really be struggling to make a valid argument if you're resorting to trying to make his argument seem less valid because he misspelled a word.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33955131]"psycological trauma" If you can't even spell Psychological correctly and you're trying to argue for it [b]i[/b] pity you "make up things to shif the story eh" UH. Don't call the kettle black when you're the pot. You're doing the same, Who said she was psychologically traumati[b]z[/b]ed?[/QUOTE] If you're going to play the grammar card: traumatised you mean. You're British, you should know better than him if you're correcting him. You should also capitalise your I's, add the 't' at the end of 'shift' in your quote. Though, dismissing an argument for its spelling is just plain idiotic. Also I don't think you could stand being hit by a piece of human flesh without some psychological distress. I know I wouldn't.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;33955359]oh man I accidentally hit another car while I was driving, I totally didn't do it on purpose, I shouldn't have to pay for this!!!!!!! how did I know how it would play out??????? omg![/QUOTE] lol shit comparison i forgot people know how death will play out silly me!!
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33955131]"psycological trauma" If you can't even spell Psychological correctly and you're trying to argue for it i pity you "make up things to shif the story eh" UH. Don't call the kettle black when you're the pot. You're doing the same, Who said she was psychologically traumatized?[/QUOTE] Wow, attacking the person making a statement in a desperate attempt to dismiss them? Wow, holy shit, you must be right! I concede! "Trauma: A deeply distressing or disturbing experience."
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33955013]That's a wonderful concept, however, he's [I]fucking dead.[/I] I'm sure she has medical insurance that would cover the extremely minor damage caused by a piece of meat slapping into you. And yes, that's "minor damage", a broken leg isn't that big of a deal, you sit out a while, you get worker's comp or work from home, and you're right as rain in a little while. That she got wounded is unfortunate, but it was an [I]accident.[/I] I'm also sure that the life insurance payout for a person annihilated via train is pretty substantial, and that the asshat just wanted a chunk of it.[/QUOTE] At the age of 58, a broken bone can be serious trouble especially for women. Women are known to have significantly greater bone loss than men. Not to mention she might not be fully insured or even have insurance. Also, the odds of an 18 year old kid having a significant life-insurance payout is pretty low. Life insurance is usually highest for the breadwinner, and it is a varying amount smaller for the stay at home parent. Children usually receive little to no coverage since their death, while tragic, will not be critical for the survival of the rest of the family. I'd agree with paying her medical bills, any extra though is pushing it. The kid's at fault for her injuries.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;33955593]Wow, attacking the person making a statement in a desperate attempt to dismiss them? Wow, holy shit, you must be right! I concede! I never stated that it was a fact that she was traumatized. My post never labels any claim as fact. You, however, insist that a broken leg is now classified as "minor damage," and that she got workers comp and a ton of other benefits to help her out. You're Doctor Salvador, after all. I suppose you know as a fact that, for every person, a broken leg is "no big deal!"[/QUOTE] Wow. Well done you ignoramus, You quoted another person completely out of context and removed their name from the quote just to make me seem like a jerkass. Here's the ACTUAL quote: [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33955013]That's a wonderful concept, however, he's [I]fucking dead.[/I] I'm sure she has medical insurance that would cover the extremely minor damage caused by a piece of meat slapping into you. And yes, that's "minor damage", a broken leg isn't that big of a deal, you sit out a while, you get worker's comp or work from home, and you're right as rain in a little while. That she got wounded is unfortunate, but it was an [I]accident.[/I] I'm also sure that the life insurance payout for a person annihilated via train is pretty substantial, and that the asshat just wanted a chunk of it.[/QUOTE] [editline]29th December 2011[/editline] He Who Fights Monsters and all that guff.
How can you sue someone who is dead?
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33955630]Wow. Well done you ignoramus, You quoted another person completely out of context and removed their name from the quote just to make me seem like a jerkass. Here's the ACTUAL quote: [editline]29th December 2011[/editline] He Who Fights Monsters and all that guff.[/QUOTE] That was a mistake on my part. I copied and pasted it from the post you attacked because I thought it was a point you made. I am sorry, it was an honest mistake. My intention was never to "remove their name just to make you seem like a jerkass;" I copied and pasted it without adding the full [quote=username]. You've pointed out my mistake, yet you continue to attack me on a personal level, calling me "stupid?"
[QUOTE=robotman5;33955667]How can you sue someone who is dead?[/QUOTE] She sued the family, not the guy itself, I think.
[QUOTE=mankind_me;33955690]She sued the family, not the guy itself, I think.[/QUOTE] Which again. Is fucking moronic. Sue the train company. Don't sue the goddamn family.
This is almost as retarded as that one time when someone sued the doctor who helped give birth to him because he ended up not wanting to live anymore.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33955715]Which again. Is fucking moronic. Sue the train company. Don't sue the goddamn family.[/QUOTE] That's the thing, there is nobody to sue here, this guy took the risk, got hit, and unwillingly, a piece of him hit this lady. Suing the family is really strange, as they didn't compel or force him to cross the railroad. Suing the company is also not a real option, as it's not their fault, he wasn't even supposed to cross there.
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;33954776]Not to sound insensitive, but I have to agree with the ruling. If the man is stupid enough to run across the tracks, he and his estate should be held responsible, even after death. It is not the woman's fault that his dismembered limbs hit her.[/QUOTE] Most Metra stations have paved tracks for walkways that you can walk on, and quite a number of them (at least in my experience with Chicago's metra) do NOT have indications that a train is coming. SOME of them have little arms that go down, not all. If I recall, Edgebrook Station DOES have paved crossings and does NOT have crossing indicators (Brookfield, however, does. Go figure.) I think it isn't necessarily a case of him being stupid and running across tracks. But more of carelessness. After all the article says the train was delayed why would he be thinking, while rushing to catch his own train, "Maybe this train was delayed"?
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33955715]Which again. Is fucking moronic. Sue the train company. Don't sue the goddamn family.[/QUOTE] The man's estate was delegated to the family. Strictly speaking, the woman sued the man's estate, not the family. That's how things generally work when someone dies. Why do you think there are still lawsuits being filed over the Lord of the Rings when J. R. R. Tolkien is long gone? Because someone else took posession of his estate, which included the ownership of his literary works. You seem to be twisting things around to make it sound like the woman is some evil monster going after the guy's family. Nowhere in the article is the word "family" used. Please stop saying that. And that makes you wrong here too: [QUOTE=Drsalvador;33954817]Alright then i guess all the money his life insurance gave his family will have to go to some prissy stuck up bitch who thinks that just because a body hit her and injured her, It's totally a sane, rational thing to go sue his family for hundreds of thousands of dollars! Fuck little timmy's college fund! ahAHahah! Show that dumb cunt to wander onto the train tracks! Yeah what a fag lol![/QUOTE] If a beneficiary is declared (in most cases it is, because that would defeat the purpose of life insurance), the money goes directly to a recently deceased person's beneficiaries, and is completely seperate from the recently deceased person's estate. It seems like you built your whole argument on the morality of suing a recently deceased person's family... but that just isn't the case here. (I checked to make sure this is your quote several times to avoid another mistake... all I had to do was Ctrl+F "cunt")
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;33955757]The man's estate was delegated to the family. Strictly speaking, the woman sued the man's estate, not the family. That's how things generally work when someone dies. Why do you think there are still lawsuits being filed over the Lord of the Rings when J. R. R. Tolkien is long gone? Because someone else took posession of his estate, which included the ownership of his literary works. You seem to be twisting things around to make it sound like the woman is some evil monster going after the guy's family. Nowhere in the article is the word "family" used. Stop changing words around.[/QUOTE] Hmm, good point. Guess I understood it wrong then :v:
I don't know how it works in whatever country that happened, but in Belgium the train company automatically sues the person who has been hit by the train. And they win, every time. Due to this, the victim usually loses everything he has ever owned and more, usually causing the family to renounce the inheritance. Otherwise, they would have to pay the rest of the costs. So this, doesn't really surprise me. And, why was he on the tracks anyways? That's never a good idea.
it's like she got slapped by a dismembered arm that just [i]knew[/i] she was going to do something stupid in the future and wanted to take care of it beforehand [editline]29th December 2011[/editline] hehe before hand
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;33954776]It is not the woman's fault that his dismembered limbs hit her.[/QUOTE] Blame physics.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.