Death of man struck by train leads to 'bizarre' civil case (Injury by flying body parts!)

The Chicago Tribune ^ | December 29, 2011 | Steve Schmadeke

[CedarDave]

Ruling in what it called a "tragically bizarre" case, an appeals court found that the estate of a man killed by a train while crossing the Edgebrook [Illinois] Metra station tracks can be held liable after a part of his body sent airborne by the collision struck and injured a bystander.

In 2008, Hiroyuki Joho, 18, was hurrying in pouring rain with an umbrella over his head, trying to catch an inbound Metra train due to arrive in about five minutes when he was struck by a southbound Amtrak train traveling more than 70 mph.

A large portion of his body was thrown about 100 feet on to the southbound platform, where it struck Gayane Zokhrabov, then 58, who was waiting to catch the 8:17 a.m. train to work. She was knocked to the ground, her leg and wrist broken and her shoulder injured.

A Cook County judge dismissed Zokhrabov's lawsuit against Joho's estate, finding that Joho could not have anticipated Zokhrabov's injuries.

A state appeals court, after noting that the case law involving "flying bodies" is sparse, has disagreed, 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.

[goat granny]

The flying parts were from an 18 year old kid....his estate consists of what is in his bedroom....

[Talisker]

Incidentally, Cardozo wrote for the New York Court of Appeals. That's the highest state court in New York, not the Supreme Court, which often confuses people. In New York, the Supreme Court is a trial court.

Oh wow, you just made my day! Here's why - one of my favorite old-time Christmas movies is Miracle on 34th Street, where Santa Claus is put on trial. And in the movie, the prosecutor mentions that the trial (actually a sanity hearing) is being held before the "New York Supreme Court," and it always bugged me to no end, because it was obviously a trial-level court. I figured Hollywood was just doing what it loves to do most - dump down the people. But still, back in 1947, people were a lot more on the ball, and I wondered how the got away with it (especially to audiences in NY).

Well, now I know - they told the truth.

Thank you!

[trumandogz]

And the homeowner policy.

[goat granny]

Being an adult by law at 18 I think they can just go after his estate....not the insurance company that his parent may have, but in this day and age who knows...

[Scoutmaster]

one of my favorite old-time Christmas movies is Miracle on 34th Street, where Santa Claus is put on trial.

You may also notice it if you watch reruns of any of the variants of the television series Law & Order. On the black and white text screens (audio: thum-THUM!), it will often note that a trial proceeding is taking place before the Supreme Court in NYC.

[ConorMacNessa]

In my torts class, I was one of the few adherents to the Cardozo opinion - I was surrounded by nascent bloodthirsty plaintiffs' attorneys. Thirty -five years later I still favor the Cardozo opinion. I felt that the net of liability was extending too wide then and I think it has gone way too far now. We have notions of "enterprise liability" which imposes liability on a company in products liability and other cases on the basis of market share rather than fault. The lefties love this one.

I am now semi-retired - have not practiced in about ten years. I know lawyers are held in low odor in this forum as well as among the general populace. When I started practicing law back in the late 70's, there was a high degree of professional courtesy and collegiality among lawyers. In recent years, this has all gone. The practice of law, particularly the litigation end of it, has become a savage and vicious business in which hardball tactics, incivility and high-handedness reign.

I couldn't take it any more. That is why I no longer practice. I have forbidden any of my children from becoming lawyers.

End of rant.

Etiam non princeps sed usque ad genua, Principis Pacis!

[Moltke]

Heh, not bad. And this (the only Brad Pitt scene worth watching over and over) is somewhat closer to the article topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mikj8eDKxMQ

[Wallop the Cat]

I know exactly how you feel. In June, I closed my practice after 21 years for the primary reason that I could no longer look myself in the mirror. I was 100% litigation, and it was no longer worth it to me. Left a lot of $$$ on the table, but left with my peace of mind and my integrity intact.

[Alissa]

To you, and all the posters afterwards, yes, I got it almost immediately after I made the post. It was the estate they were suing. My mistake in not reading carefully.