Skip to comments.
Death of man struck by train leads to 'bizarre' civil case (Injury by flying body parts!)
The Chicago Tribune ^
| December 29, 2011
| Steve Schmadeke
Posted on 12/29/2011 11:28:30 AM PST by CedarDave
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
Zokhrabov's attorney said that while the circumstances were "very peculiar and gory and creepy," it ultimately was a straightforward negligence case.
1
posted on
12/29/2011 11:28:34 AM PST
by
CedarDave
To: CedarDave
Have we heard from any of the candidates their position on tort reform?
2
posted on
12/29/2011 11:32:38 AM PST
by
NonValueAdded
("At a time like this, we can't afford the luxury of thinking!")
To: CedarDave
I understand she is suing for an arm and a leg.
Hey Now!....tip your waitresses people...I’ll be here all week.
3
posted on
12/29/2011 11:35:43 AM PST
by
RoarkMan
(no tag line entered)
To: CedarDave
Why would his family be liable? This makes no sense.
4
posted on
12/29/2011 11:37:24 AM PST
by
Alissa
To: CedarDave
Cases like this should be thrown out of court. You see the train coming, you see lights flashing. The fact that he had an umbrella is a distraction. He tried to beat the train and lost.
5
posted on
12/29/2011 11:37:24 AM PST
by
Opinionated Blowhard
("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
To: CedarDave
The man made a record breaking post-mortem flying tackle. He's guilty of negligently being killed. Or something.
6
posted on
12/29/2011 11:41:11 AM PST
by
count-your-change
(You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: Alissa
Apparently young Mr. Joho should have been able to anticipate that if he were to accidently be hit by an oncoming train as a result of poor judgement on his part, that flying body-parts (his) would be dangerous and might hit and injure innocent bystanders.
I think that’s it.
7
posted on
12/29/2011 11:45:12 AM PST
by
SuzyQue
To: count-your-change
intentional grounding, loss of down and 15 yard penalty.
8
posted on
12/29/2011 11:46:21 AM PST
by
WOBBLY BOB
(Congress: Looting the future to bribe the present.)
To: Alissa
Why would his family be liable? This makes no sense.I imagine its the same as driving too fast for conditions on an icy road, lose control and crash into another car. You are responsible for the injuries you cause, even though you may have been killed in the crash, and your estate can be sued for damages.
9
posted on
12/29/2011 11:46:44 AM PST
by
CedarDave
To: Alissa
His family isn’t liable, his estate is. He was grossly negligent and an innocent person was injured as a result of his negligence. That person has a claim against his estate.
10
posted on
12/29/2011 11:47:14 AM PST
by
iowamark
To: CedarDave
It’s Illinois, so now he can vote democrat in 3 different places at once.
11
posted on
12/29/2011 11:48:25 AM PST
by
WOBBLY BOB
(Congress: Looting the future to bribe the present.)
To: Alissa
It’s his estate, not his family that is responsible; a subtle difference in the case of an 18 year-old perhaps. Sad all around though
12
posted on
12/29/2011 11:51:13 AM PST
by
muir_redwoods
(No wonder this administration favors abortion; everything they have done is an abortion)
To: Alissa
“Why would his family be liable? This makes no sense.”
Sorry, but if you do something stupid, killing yourself and a family member of mine, I’m going after your estate.
13
posted on
12/29/2011 11:52:03 AM PST
by
trumandogz
(If Rick Perry cannot secure his name on the Va. ballot, how could he be trusted to secure America?)
To: CedarDave
What would Mrs. Paslgraff say??
To: CedarDave
If he hadn’t already lost his ass to the train, he sure as hell lost it in court. /:8^)
I’ve got a million of them. BAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
ED
15
posted on
12/29/2011 11:58:06 AM PST
by
husky ed
(FOX NEWS ALERT "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead" THIS HAS BEEN A FOX NEWS ALERT)
To: CedarDave
16
posted on
12/29/2011 11:58:06 AM PST
by
Lando Lincoln
(But that's just me.)
To: Wallop the Cat
Looks like the Illinois Court adopted the reasoning of the dissent in the Palsgraf case.
Etiam non princeps sed usque ad genua, Principis Pacis!
17
posted on
12/29/2011 11:58:40 AM PST
by
ConorMacNessa
(HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 - St. Michael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
To: trumandogz
So now standing by the wayside minding your own business is “doing something stupid?”
To: WOBBLY BOB
Amtrac can sue the man's estate too since he caused mental distress to the crew, why...I can sue him since I feel bad just reading about it, Everybody can file a lawsuit!
In ten years I expect my share of his damaged umbrella.
19
posted on
12/29/2011 12:00:56 PM PST
by
count-your-change
(You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: Alissa
His family would not be liable, his estate would be. It was his negligence just before he was gathered to his people that was the cause of the lady’s injuries.
20
posted on
12/29/2011 12:07:06 PM PST
by
Busywhiskers
("Once you have wrestled, everything else in life is easy" -Dan Gable)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson