If you were in the injured woman's shoes, would you sue, too?

[Archie]

https://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_...e=outbrain&utm_content=outbrain&quick_picks=1

 

[a 1 player]

In a case like this I would think she would be able to sue as it was the teens negligence that caused her to become hurt. If he had not played chicken she would not have been injured. I would probably sue too.

 

[Slick]

I would probably sue too.

It is just too bad the parents have to go through more pain.

 

[a 1 player]

It is just too bad the parents have to go through more pain.

I agree with that, it is a shame.

 

[Jesus Quintana]

I'd sue the train station if I felt like suing anyone.
They have a lot more money.
What's she going to get from a dead kid? His playstation?

 

[Dan]

I'd sue the train station if I felt like suing anyone.
They have a lot more money.
What's she going to get from a dead kid? His playstation?

Agreed and I wouldn't have the heart to do it considering how he died.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

As sad as it is, this is in the US and there is no universal health care. She may have to sue for her medical expenses. The article does not say.

Suing the train station would not go anywhere. There is no negligence on their part. Suing the estate is really all she would be able to do. At that age, if there is not medical coverage, why should she go into debt for medical costs because the kid played chicken. Not her fault at all that it happened. Now if she was suing for more then that, then I can see issues. IF she has coverage and is suing, I see issues as well. It is still clearly her choice but I would only sue if I need the medical covered and I would be quite clear about that. I would also of course look for other ways to get the money, before suing. It would be a last resort and one that I would hate to have to do.

 

[Jesus Quintana]

Actually the train station can be held liable as a case can be made that it appears that the owners never made ABSOLUTELY sure that there was no way that the aforementioned boy could cross the tracks. Of course - very sadly - it was a silly mistake that he made however in this day and age where we legislate against stupidity instead of teaching not to do stupid shit a case can be made.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

Actually the train station can be held liable as a case can be made that it appears that the owners never made ABSOLUTELY sure that there was no way that the aforementioned boy could cross the tracks. Of course - very sadly - it was a silly mistake that he made however in this day and age where we legislate against stupidity instead of teaching not to do stupid shit a case can be made.

Would that not be a case for the parents of the boy, not the woman hit with his body's parts?

Also, we don't know if he hopped a fence or anything that has been put in place to stop people from crossing the tracks? If that was the case, the woman would still no be able to use the boy's estate.

 

[tboy]

As stated, this IS the US and they'll sue anyone for any reason.

No, I would not sue the estate of the dead teen...I have more class than that.....on a similar vein, I have heard rumors that firemen are now able to be sued for water damage caused when they were fighting a fire....haven't been able to confirm it, but heard it from a volunteer fireman up here......

 

[Guido]

As stated, this IS the US and they'll sue anyone for any reason.

No, I would not sue the estate of the dead teen...I have more class than that.....on a similar vein, I have heard rumors that firemen are now able to be sued for water damage caused when they were fighting a fire....haven't been able to confirm it, but heard it from a volunteer fireman up here......

I wouldn't put it passed a lawyer to try and sue the fire department. Imagine your house burning down and a fireman asking you to sign a waiver prior to saving your property.

I wouldn't sue the kids estate, although I can see Femme's point with lack of medical insurance in the US it may be an issue.

 

[tboy]

You have to wonder if the teen came from a wealthy family. I mean as some have stated, how much of an estate can a teen actually have?

 

[Jesus Quintana]

Also, we don't know if he hopped a fence or anything that has been put in place to stop people from crossing the tracks? If that was the case, the woman would still no be able to use the boy's estate.

Well the parents cannot be held liable as he was clearly an adult having passed the magic age of 18 and therefore responsible for his own actions.
On the other hand if he were able to "Hop a fence" or any barrier that may have been put up its obvious that the barrier was insufficient.
Quite clearly this was a stupid act on behalf of the deceased, and he paid the ultimate price for any act of stupidity, however in a world where you can think to yourself "It was tragic - I'm gonna sue the fucker" - then you start looking at all the options. WHy hasn't the actual train that hit the youth been sued? Certainly they should be able to devise a way to hit pedestrians in such a way that body parts aren't distributed willy nilly to harm innocent bystanders.

 

[a 1 player]

I don't think barriers are the issue.

One can walk onto a highway by entering through the on ramp, can jump off a building balcony by climbing over it, and on a train walk right off the platform. The root cause is that the boy was negligent, and he should have known better.

 

[tboy]

While I agree the kid was negligent, but the woman wasn't injured by his direct actions. What I mean is, for example, if someone decided to kill themselves, by driving the wrong way on the highway, or by ramming their car head-on onto oncoming traffic, yeah, I could see going after the insurance company or the estate.

In the case in point, there was no intent. A good example of this: Someone is riding their bike downtown. Hit's a pothole and gets a flat tire. They pick the bike up off the road, lay it on the sidewalk and start fixing the flat. A pedestrian walks by and trips over the bike. Sues the bike rider.

Another example: a pedestrian is crossing at yonge and bloor. Trips over loose pavement, falls and cuts their knee badly. They limp to the curb and bleed all over the sidewalk. Another pedestrian walks by and slips on the pool of blood.

They've put a stop to this one: You're at a blue jay's baseball game. A player hits a line drive to right field. You don't see the ball coming and it hits you in the chest and breaks a couple of ribs. It plainly states on the ticket that you cannot sue the player. (even if it's an a 1 player hehehe).

I bet if this suit goes through, and she wins, (what she'll win I have no idea), you're going to see a shit load of more suits being filed for all sorts of ludicrous things.....

 

[Auggie]

Every person on the platform should be given the expectation that a flying body part might hit them. They should be forced to sign an agreement not to sue if this happens each time they purchase a ticket.

The same for grocery shopping, each time you enter the store you should sign an agreement stating you will not sue if your bag breaks and cans start rolling across the sidewalk causing a child to fall off his bicycle and tumbling into oncoming traffic. :bs:

 

[tboy]

^^^^ actually, like sports events, all they have to do is print it on the back of the ticket stating something like "by purchasing this ticket you release blah blah from all perils etc".....

 

[Auggie]

Agreed, and every grocery bag should have information printed on it to absolve the bag manufacturer or seller of any damage cause by rippage.

 

[oagre]

Solid lawsuit. The teen was negligent in racing across the tracks with an oncoming train approaching at speed. The teen's action foreseeably caused part's of his body to fly about hitting innocent bystanders and wounding them. As a lawyer, I would be quite ready to act for the injured woman in this action.

The issue is indeed whether the teen as sufficient assets or insurance to cover the damages award.

 

[tboy]

Solid lawsuit. The teen was negligent in racing across the tracks with an oncoming train approaching at speed. The teen's action foreseeably caused part's of his body to fly about hitting innocent bystanders and wounding them. As a lawyer, I would be quite ready to act for the injured woman in this action.

The issue is indeed whether the teen as sufficient assets or insurance to cover the damages award.

of course you would, any ambulance chaser would grab this case in a heartbeat! I think this a case of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".....