Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Dead man sued because his flying body parts injured someone else. Frivolous or necessary lawsuit? Options · View
lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:58:10 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
Man killed in train accident sued by woman who was hit by his flying body parts

A teenager killed while crossing train tracks can be sued for injuries caused to a woman on the platform, when one of his severed body parts hit her, a court has ruled.
Hiroyuki Joho, 18, died when he ran in front of a 70mph Amtrak train at Edgebrook Metra station in Chicago in 2008. It was pouring with rain and the teen had an umbrella over his head.

His body was severed on impact, and a large part became airborne, flying about 100 feet onto the southbound platform, where it hit a commuter.

Hiroyuki Joho, 18, died when he ran in front of a 70mph Amtrak train at Edgebrook Metra station in Chicago in 2008
Gayane Zokhrabov, 58, was knocked to the ground, her leg and wrist broken and her shoulder injured, the Chicago Tribune reported.

A Cook County court judge initially dismissed Zokhrabov's lawsuit against the boy's estate, ruling that Joho could not possibly have anticipated Zokhrabov's injuries.
But ruling in what it called a 'tragically bizarre' case, a state appeals court disagreed.
It found that 'it was reasonably foreseeable' that the high-speed train would kill the college hopeful and fling his body toward a platform where people were waiting.

Hiroyuki Joho, known as Hiro was a popular member of his high school class who played in the tennis and soccer teams. Left, as a baby. Right, Hiro with a friend
Lawyer Leslie Rosen, who handled Zokhrabov's appeal, argued that the case was a straightforward negligence case, albeit with 'very peculiar and gory and creepy' circumstances.

'If you do something as stupid as this guy did, you have to be responsible for what comes from it,' she said.
The teenager's mother Jeung-Hee Park, had left the bright high-school student at the station that morning.

Seeing what he thought was his local train approaching and expecting it to slow down, Joho went to cross a same-level pedestrian walkway across the tracks to get to the right side of the track.
But in fact Joho's train was delayed by the bad weather, his mother's lawyer Keith Davidson said.

The train which hit him was an Amtrak high speed express speeding at 70mph towards the city centre.

Park had previously filed her own suit claiming that Metra and the Canadian Pacific Railway were negligent
Gruesome: Joho's body was severed on impact, and a large part became airborne, flying about 100 feet onto the southbound platform, where it hit commuter Gayane Zokhrabov, 58
Struck down: Gayane Zokhrabov, 58, waiting on the platform at Edgebrook, was knocked to the ground, her leg and wrist broken and her shoulder injured
The express Amtrak train had overtaken his Metra train which was running late that morning, but no announcement was made on the platform, the suit said.

But a Cook County judge ruled that the railway companies had no compulsion to warn people about such an 'open and obvious danger' as a travelling train. The decision was upheld on appeal

Keith Davidson, one of Park's attorneys, said that the crossing where of high speed trains cross a slow commuter train track is inherently hazardous.

The whistle that warns people to keep clear is no longer in use and the view of the track is partly blocked by foliage, he said.







When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:13:33 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
Quote:

'If you do something as stupid as this guy did, you have to be responsible for what comes from it,' she said.


Yeah, he died in pieces, so he paid the price of resononsibility. Enough said, or it should be. He paid with his life, so why torture his bereaved family for self-serving, vain-glorious monetarily seeking advantage?

The rest is disgusting, self seeking and goulish yearning to shamelessly profit from someone else's disaster.

Or it is just my opinion.

Whatever...
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:01:44 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
Quote:
'it was reasonably foreseeable' that the high-speed train would kill the college hopeful and fling his body toward a platform where people were waiting.


Kill him yes. Fling body parts, no. What a greedy, self centered person this is to sue his family. Here's your 15 minutes of fame bitch. Now move along to foul the rest of your world with your morals and values.
lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:15:34 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
chefkathleen wrote:


Kill him yes. Fling body parts, no. What a greedy, self centered person this is to sue his family. Here's your 15 minutes of fame bitch. Now move along to foul the rest of your world with your morals and values.



Have I told you lately how much I love you? lol Paging Rod Stewart





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:18:33 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
chefkathleen wrote:


Kill him yes. Fling body parts, no. What a greedy, self centered person this is to sue his family. Here's your 15 minutes of fame bitch. Now move along to foul the rest of your world with your morals and values.


I wholeheartedly agree. You may just be my new hero, Chef!
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:41:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
I'd want to know what she's suing for. If she's a money-grubbing bitch that wants a paycheck, then fuck her with the Great Mandalayan Cock of Death.

But if she has no medical insurance (like many millions of Americans these days) and she's now facing medical bills for care to her broken wrist and leg... I broke my arm in 2000. It took three surgeries over three years (along with subsequent physical therapy) to make it right. The total bill was up near a half million. Why should she be saddled with that debt because of an accident that was no fault of hers? Medical bills are never forgiven, even in bankruptcy. Why should her credit be ruined?

Again - without knowing her motive, I can't condemn her OR commiserate with her.

Guest
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:46:34 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
Quote:
But a Cook County judge ruled that the railway companies had no compulsion to warn people about such an 'open and obvious danger' as a travelling train


Well then let's stop all the RR crossing whistles/horns and lights, that go off at every crossing in the US day or night, rain or shine. Cause there is an "open and obvious danger" that a TRAIN is going to be going across there any minute.(human v. train guess who wins?) What the hell kind of logic is that?

I don't think this kids family should have to pay squat for her or her medical bills or pain and suffering. You know that'll be coming next.
It sounds like an accident. That's it. If you don't have insurance you do like the rest of us to and eat it. Pay for it a little at a time until it's paid off. It's called being responsible for yourself and your finances.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 5:29:18 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
chefkathleen wrote:
I don't think this kids family should have to pay squat for her or her medical bills or pain and suffering. You know that'll be coming next.
It sounds like an accident. That's it. If you don't have insurance you do like the rest of us to and eat it. Pay for it a little at a time until it's paid off. It's called being responsible for yourself and your finances.


So someone can hurt you, and you won't pursue action against them? I agree that the woman shouldn't be compensated for any pain or suffering. Accidents happen. But what if someone had run a red light and broadsided her car? Would you still expect her to pay her own medical bills? Or should she sue the negligent driver? What if an inexperienced gun owner mishandles his firearm and fires off a shot. The errant bullet exits his home and hits someone walking by. That person should also have to pony up their own medical bills, right?

This woman was injured by someone else's negligent action. That person (or his estate) should have to pay for any costs arising from his actions. Personally, I don't see how the court found the railway to be completely free from liability, especially if the shrubbery had grown to obscure visibility, but hey - I wasn't there.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 5:32:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
I think this sidebar on the page the original story is on is quite interesting:

Quote:
Two months after Joho's death, another person was killed while crossing the same Edgebrook station tracks in Chicago.
Joyce Chiriboga, 48, died after being hit while following her sister across the tracks.
A Metra engineer had allegedly failed to keep lookout and blow the horn in time.
The case was settled for an undisclosed amount


Why is it that the railway was responsible in Joyce's death, but not in Hiro's?


Hmmmm......

Guest
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 6:18:17 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
MrNudiePants wrote:


So someone can hurt you, and you won't pursue action against them? I agree that the woman shouldn't be compensated for any pain or suffering. Accidents happen. But what if someone had run a red light and broadsided her car? Would you still expect her to pay her own medical bills? Or should she sue the negligent driver? What if an inexperienced gun owner mishandles his firearm and fires off a shot. The errant bullet exits his home and hits someone walking by. That person should also have to pony up their own medical bills, right?

This woman was injured by someone else's negligent action. That person (or his estate) should have to pay for any costs arising from his actions. Personally, I don't see how the court found the railway to be completely free from liability, especially if the shrubbery had grown to obscure visibility, but hey - I wasn't there.


I totally agree that if anything the stations upkeep was in question. Perhaps even the train lines for allowing a train to travel at 70mph in a populated area. Not allowed where I'm from and where I live. I thought it was a federal law.
Comparing a negligent driver and gun owner to this scenario is like comparing apples to oranges in my opinion. The kid wasn't negligent. Also I thought it was against the law to drive without some form of insurance. So if the insured persons insurance still doesn't pay then she'll have to pay her own bills.
Rembacher
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:44:10 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
lafayettemister wrote:
Seeing what he thought was his local train approaching and expecting it to slow down, Joho went to cross a same-level pedestrian walkway across the tracks to get to the right side of the track.
But in fact Joho's train was delayed by the bad weather, his mother's lawyer Keith Davidson said.

The train which hit him was an Amtrak high speed express speeding at 70mph towards the city centre.



This strikes me as bad design more than anything. You actually cross the tracks at the same level as the train? How are there not more accidents from people who try and make it across before the train comes through? The train stations I've been at have underground tunnels, or walkways which allow the trains to run underneath them, and allow passengers to cross the tracks with no possibility of injury.

Also, a train traveling at that speed should have a different route, even if it's just running on an outside track where people don't have to cross. It seems like it would be such an easy thing for the railroad to find a way for this accident to not have happened at all.

With no horn or whistle on the train, I find it very hard to believe that she will win the case. This just wasn't negligence on his part. Also, how much of an estate does an 18 year old have? He's legally an adult, right? To me, that would mean it is his assets, and his assets alone, that would be available to be sued.
Sirene_Jaune
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:25:18 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/6/2011
Posts: 771
Location: In my mind, Australia
Okay I was being a smart arse when I read the story and I thought "Only in America"

Anyway I think it is really pathetic on this person for suing a dead guy's family. They lost their child in a horrific way. Why drag the pain up for something that was clearly an accident.

Axl - Take a look at our piercing menu.

Daria - I don't think that's how you spell "uvula."

Axl - That's not "uvula."

From: "Daria" episode "Pierce Me"
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:11:13 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
chefkathleen wrote:


I totally agree that if anything the stations upkeep was in question. Perhaps even the train lines for allowing a train to travel at 70mph in a populated area. Not allowed where I'm from and where I live. I thought it was a federal law.
Comparing a negligent driver and gun owner to this scenario is like comparing apples to oranges in my opinion. The kid wasn't negligent. Also I thought it was against the law to drive without some form of insurance. So if the insured persons insurance still doesn't pay then she'll have to pay her own bills.


The kid was obviously negligent. What other word would you use for someone that ventures onto a train track without making sure there's no train coming? Suicidal or just stupid? I feel for his family, and if the plaintiff is suing to try for a piece of the punishment pie, then the whole thing should be kicked out of court. I just don't have enough information to say that's the case.

And yes, it's against the law to drive with no insurance. Does that mean that there's nobody on the road doing it? Even if they do have insurance, the injured party may very well have medical bills over what the insurance covers. If so, they will still need to bring a suit against the negligent party.



Guest
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:24:10 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
Quite frankly it beggars belief and so do some of the "more inciteful" responses

I too was thinking "only in America", and then I thought of some of the issues we have in the UK.

Thankfully we do have a reasonable welfare state, even if they do pay scrotes for doing nothing all day, it does protect the innocent and mean that medical bills do not have to be paid by the estate of an unfortunate, if careless, kid.

But it makes me wonder who drives the whole thing.
A lady with a broken leg
or ambulance chasing, we can win you a shed load of money, legal vultures

Okay okay, soapbox has been vacated

Have a good day all



rxtales
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 2:40:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/28/2008
Posts: 2,589
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom
I think it's a bit ridiculous, but I know people in the states who are injured and sue, because they feel they have no other option to pay there medical bills?

But how can you sue a dead person? He can't pay anybody.
charmbrights
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 3:14:26 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/2/2011
Posts: 192
Location: Tirphil, United Kingdom
chefkathleen wrote:
... What a greedy, self centered person this is to sue his family. ...
I would bet quite a lot of money that this action is wholly inspired by a grasping lawyer, and that the person nominally suing is set to get very little of any award.



News of ALL my novels (and where to get free copies) on charmbrights.webs.com/novels.htm.
SigurdOokami
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:04:04 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/23/2011
Posts: 418
Location: At a computer, United Kingdom
I can understand that being hit by a severed limb would cause severe psychological damage, but the guy just died, trying to sue him is amazingly offensive. Its just not cricket!

This post comes to you from the original and highly disorganised mind of mine...be scared, I certainly am, lol
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:07:13 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
MrNudiePants wrote:


The kid was obviously negligent. What other word would you use for someone that ventures onto a train track without making sure there's no train coming? Suicidal or just stupid? I feel for his family, and if the plaintiff is suing to try for a piece of the punishment pie, then the whole thing should be kicked out of court. I just don't have enough information to say that's the case.

And yes, it's against the law to drive with no insurance. Does that mean that there's nobody on the road doing it? Even if they do have insurance, the injured party may very well have medical bills over what the insurance covers. If so, they will still need to bring a suit against the negligent party.



I agree with you in spirit here, but the practicality of sticking this kid's family with the bill doesn't sit well with me. To me, your analogy would work perfectly if we all had to carry some sort of all-purpose/general liability insurance, then that policy would kick in even in death. But if the baseline point of a lawsuit is to seek responsibility where it's deserved, I have a hard time believing that the Estate of Mr. Joho (his parents) fits the criteria here.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:40:40 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
I think one of your words is key MNP. "kid" In that line of thought, a ten year old speeds out into traffic and I hit and kill him. He's negligent. Do I sue his family because in trying to avoid him I crash my car and hurt myself? Or his body goes flying up onto my windshield.(body part) I don't think his parents should have to be put through that. She and I would just need to suck it up and pay.
As for all having car insurance but not everyone having it, why sue them? Obviously they don't have the money for it or they'd have it. Ya can't get blood out of a turnip as my grandma used to say.
Buz
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 11:51:25 AM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,778
Location: Atlanta, United States
Fucking lawyers!!!!!!violent3

MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 7:11:08 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
I agree with you in spirit here, but the practicality of sticking this kid's family with the bill doesn't sit well with me. To me, your analogy would work perfectly if we all had to carry some sort of all-purpose/general liability insurance, then that policy would kick in even in death. But if the baseline point of a lawsuit is to seek responsibility where it's deserved, I have a hard time believing that the Estate of Mr. Joho (his parents) fits the criteria here.


Yes, if the point of the suit is punitive, then it's bullshit, plain and simple. However, if the point of the suit is to prevent the injured woman from losing her house, her car, and all of her possessions because she can't pay her medical bills, then I'd tend to give it some merit. If Hiro's parents have a home, then they probably have general liability insurance that could kick in to help pay. If not, then I believe it should be their responsibility to help the woman out anyway. I keep coming back to the idea that she's the main victim here. Think about it - you're just sitting there waiting for a train. Something you probably do two or four times a day. next thing you know, you're in an ambulance headed for a hospital and racking up who knows how many thousands in medical bills? I know first hand that my broken arm cost the insurance company upwards of half a million, once all the surgeries, followups, and therapies were finished. If I hadn't had insurance to pay the bill, I'd have been truly fucked. If it was not my fault, but because of some dumb-ass... I'd have been looking for payback.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 7:21:39 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
chefkathleen wrote:
I think one of your words is key MNP. "kid" In that line of thought, a ten year old speeds out into traffic and I hit and kill him. He's negligent. Do I sue his family because in trying to avoid him I crash my car and hurt myself? Or his body goes flying up onto my windshield.(body part) I don't think his parents should have to be put through that. She and I would just need to suck it up and pay.
As for all having car insurance but not everyone having it, why sue them? Obviously they don't have the money for it or they'd have it. Ya can't get blood out of a turnip as my grandma used to say.


Big difference between a ten-year-old darting out into traffic and an eighteen-year-old failing to correctly judge the speed of a locomotive heading straight at him. And why sue? Maybe just for personal satisfaction. Maybe it's for posterity, so you have proof that you've tried to collect the money to pay the bills. Maybe it's so the creditors hound the other party and not you. I'm sure there are as many reasons as there are shysters in Chicago.

Guest
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:03:53 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
I thought "bitch" too, but the boy's family also tried to sue the train company, so screw them all.

The plaintiff's attorneys went after the family rather than Metra because it was easier. Metra has deeper pockets, and would have been, in my common sense thinking, more liable and guaranteed to fulfil Plaintiff's alleged medical needs. If not for the fact that the train was travelling at such a high rate of speed, the flying limb would not have been able to reach its velocity and distance to cause the alleged harm. However, Metra has better attorney's than could be acquired by the deceased's family. Metra would have scrutinized the Plaintiff's damages much more thoroughly through Independent Medical Examinations, depositions, and a horde of already proven legal argument to counter any argument by the Plaintiff.

In the end, the judgment came on appeal solely on the basis of "reasonably foreseeable." What a joke, I hope those Judges are no longer seated. I guess since its reasonably foreseeable that kids do the damnedest things, we should just home school them all and not allow them to go outside, and the rest of us should roll around in Pope Mobiles while wearing protective body armour.


Jonnymarine
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:54:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 66
MrNudiePants wrote:


So someone can hurt you, and you won't pursue action against them? I agree that the woman shouldn't be compensated for any pain or suffering. Accidents happen. But what if someone had run a red light and broadsided her car? Would you still expect her to pay her own medical bills? Or should she sue the negligent driver? What if an inexperienced gun owner mishandles his firearm and fires off a shot. The errant bullet exits his home and hits someone walking by. That person should also have to pony up their own medical bills, right?

This woman was injured by someone else's negligent action. That person (or his estate) should have to pay for any costs arising from his actions. Personally, I don't see how the court found the railway to be completely free from liability, especially if the shrubbery had grown to obscure visibility, but hey - I wasn't there.



No his estate should not have to pay for it... His family members are already the victims of a tragic accident. Why would you victimize them further by suing their DEAD son for injuring you after he was dead... Its heartless and cruel. Its completely ridiculous and self serving. As for the 2 examples you mentioned, Im guessing neither person dies in either of those cases if so then yes the person who caused the accident should have to pay. However this kid couldn't possibly have predicted that he was going to die, let alone where his body parts where going to land after he was ALREADY DEAD. This is a heartless bitch who is only looking for money. Not thinking about this young mans family and how it feels for them that they lost their fucking son. Broken bones heal, but as far as I no we haven't figured out how to bring people back from the dead yet...
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, January 19, 2012 7:16:52 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
In related news....

A man who is serving time killing a man while driving drunk; a crime he ADMITTED to committing, is now suing the estate of the man HE killed. For medical bills and pain&suffering. He says the deceased is partly to blame for the accident saying the dead man "abruptly changed lanes". Even though eye witnesses and event data system both say that the man's car was not in motion.


I hate shit like this.

DUI man sues estate of man he killed





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
SydneySider
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2012 3:38:32 AM

Rank: Chat Moderator

Joined: 11/6/2011
Posts: 1,696
Location: Sydney, Australia
No wonder the court systems are clogged..

MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2012 11:02:31 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Jonnymarine wrote:
No his estate should not have to pay for it... His family members are already the victims of a tragic accident. Why would you victimize them further by suing their DEAD son for injuring you after he was dead... Its heartless and cruel. Its completely ridiculous and self serving. As for the 2 examples you mentioned, Im guessing neither person dies in either of those cases if so then yes the person who caused the accident should have to pay. However this kid couldn't possibly have predicted that he was going to die, let alone where his body parts where going to land after he was ALREADY DEAD. This is a heartless bitch who is only looking for money. Not thinking about this young mans family and how it feels for them that they lost their fucking son. Broken bones heal, but as far as I no we haven't figured out how to bring people back from the dead yet...


How do you know what her motivation is? I say until that's determined, there's no basis for deciding either way.

Fugly
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:39:46 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/11/2010
Posts: 1,004
MrNudiePants wrote:


Yes, if the point of the suit is punitive, then it's bullshit, plain and simple. However, if the point of the suit is to prevent the injured woman from losing her house, her car, and all of her possessions because she can't pay her medical bills, then I'd tend to give it some merit. If Hiro's parents have a home, then they probably have general liability insurance that could kick in to help pay. If not, then I believe it should be their responsibility to help the woman out anyway. I keep coming back to the idea that she's the main victim here. Think about it - you're just sitting there waiting for a train. Something you probably do two or four times a day. next thing you know, you're in an ambulance headed for a hospital and racking up who knows how many thousands in medical bills? I know first hand that my broken arm cost the insurance company upwards of half a million, once all the surgeries, followups, and therapies were finished. If I hadn't had insurance to pay the bill, I'd have been truly fucked. If it was not my fault, but because of some dumb-ass... I'd have been looking for payback.


You keep going on about not knowing all the circumstances but you are making a huge assumption that she was not insured or that she has no money and is unable to pay for her medical bills and yet you seem to think that the family is able to??? What if you are wrong and it is the opposite! If she was so worried about losing her house etc, wouldn't it have been more sensible to pay the medical bills instead of the lawyers which she had no problem paying the first time, and then the second time when it was appealed?

Personally, I think that the family of the young boy who was still in high school should sue the woman in return for all the pain and heartache that she has put them through and for negligence for her not being able to see a 'large part' flying in her direction and not moving out of the way (probably to busy reaching for her mobile to film it, then youtube it - sorry, but you never know these days) and for mishandling and violating their son's body.

No sorry, but the real victim is now 6 foot under and the family has suffered enough. And the payback in this story is that he is dead at a young age of 18 who just begun to live his adult life, and she will heal in a couple of months and has lived a reasonable full life to the age of 58 and will continue to live for more years to come. She should be thankful, not vindictive.


WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2012 1:40:59 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,288
Location: Cakeland, United States
I read this article on another site, a little over a week ago and my first thoughts were not about the greedy, conniving lawyer nor the two primary people involved - one quite deceased and the other with injuries incurred because she happened to be standing (minding her own business) a hundred feet away from where the initial impact/damage took place.

My initial thought was that boarding stations for passenger rail services are still quite dangerous and the railroad companies have managed to influence legislation as well as public opinion to the belief that they have created the safest system possible, in order to use the service they provide.

And that is just bullshit. They have done the minimum required to allow people to board their coaches, the rest they have managed to convince us, the riding public and the legal system and our political establishment that everything else is our responsibility.

They might as well place large warning placards all over the train stations -- Warning: Attempting to use our product may dismember and kill you and everyone around you, enter at your own risk!

I have never ridden many trains or metro express systems. I've never actually been near the platform inside any subway station, but they have always looked to me to be a death trap. Extremely accessible death traps at that.

I grew up near a very busy US Railroad mainline freight operation and from a young age I was aware that those big pieces of machinery cannot stop on a dime and if you tangle with something that large, moving at all...whether 1 mph or 100 mph, you're not going to like the end result.

It's my thought that in this case, Metra & Amtrak & Canadian Pacific (as the three corporations providing services at this station/platform) are all equally negligent.

Sliding protective fencing, which prevents public access to the railway right of way should be installed (at an initial considerable expense perhaps - but no more expensive than the cost of a couple of locomotives) along any area which can be accessed by a potential rider/passenger. The fencing/gating would be of at least 60 inches in height when it is in place and be sufficiently sturdy enough to prevent crowds from being able to mill about and push a person into the path of a train. Only when all train movement has stopped for 10 seconds or so..do the gates slide down - flush with the concrete flooring to allow access to the coaches.

Something of this nature (more fully thought out and designed).


In this particular case, I have to side with the woman who was injured by airborne debris (which is what Joho turned himself into, after his body became a grisly, dismembered corpse upon meeting the onrushing locomotive).



If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:37:42 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Fugs wrote:
You keep going on about not knowing all the circumstances but you are making a huge assumption that she was not insured or that she has no money and is unable to pay for her medical bills and yet you seem to think that the family is able to??? What if you are wrong and it is the opposite! If she was so worried about losing her house etc, wouldn't it have been more sensible to pay the medical bills instead of the lawyers which she had no problem paying the first time, and then the second time when it was appealed?

Personally, I think that the family of the young boy who was still in high school should sue the woman in return for all the pain and heartache that she has put them through and for negligence for her not being able to see a 'large part' flying in her direction and not moving out of the way (probably to busy reaching for her mobile to film it, then youtube it - sorry, but you never know these days) and for mishandling and violating their son's body.

No sorry, but the real victim is now 6 foot under and the family has suffered enough. And the payback in this story is that he is dead at a young age of 18 who just begun to live his adult life, and she will heal in a couple of months and has lived a reasonable full life to the age of 58 and will continue to live for more years to come. She should be thankful, not vindictive.



I'm sorry, fugs, but I'm not assuming anything. I'm just pointing out to all the "She's a greedy grave-robbing bitch!" people that there may be extenuating circumstances that none of us here know about. Yes, I'm sorry for the boy and his family. But even as they grieve, his ordeal is over. That poor family will eventually move on and their hurt will fade. The injured woman's will not. I'm sorry for the trauma she's gone through and will go through for the rest of her life. If you've ever been seriously injured (as in multiple broken bones) then you know - you feel the pain for ever. I do, and my injuries are nearly eight years old.

I feel sorry for all sides here.

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.