Posted on 01/08/2012 8:55:24 AM PST by BraveMan
You think you've heard it all until I tell you that an appeals court in Illinois recently ruled that a woman is allowed to sue a dead teen's estate for injuries caused by his flying body parts. The 18-year-old boy was running across the Amtrak tracks to catch another train but didn't make it -- he was hit by an oncoming train going 70 mph and his body was torn apart by the force and flung onto a nearby passengers' waiting platform. The woman, 58, was struck by a sizable chunk of the boy's body and was knocked to the ground, breaking her leg and wrist. The court ruled that the boy's death was "reasonably foreseeable" and that his estate can be held responsible for his negligence.
I'm sorry, but who goes around suing a dead teen whose body was ripped to shreds in one of the most gruesome ways imaginable?
(Excerpt) Read more at thestir.cafemom.com ...
I’m sorry, it’s a completely reasonable lawsuit. His negligence harmed others and they have a right to recover.
She WAS injured by another person’s negligence.
Correct.
Yes, but what constitutes the estate of a dead teenager? Should (not "are", but "should") the parents be held responsible for such an act?
Insurance Company attempting to recover losses?
She can collect his iPod with its collection of rap and hip hop.
If your kid hits a baseball and smashes someone’s window, then your are supposed to pay to have the window fixed. It’s like that, except for more blood.
I'm assuming that the 18 year old dead boy legally owned the estate.
Surely you do not think the parents of an adult should pay, do you?
No need to answer. I just took a look at your FR name.
The parents are not responsible, imho. Experience is a cruel teacher, and this poor kid failed. Suing the estate of teen seems futile, unless he has trust fund from his grandparents or other assets, agreed.
I was just going to say...what kind of an estate does a teen have anyway? a record collection? A skateboard? Concert Tshirts? Maybe an old jalopy, but I doubt it. Any car the kid drove is probably in the parents’ name.
Not if my kids is 18. He's a man and responsible.
>>>I’m sorry, it’s a completely reasonable lawsuit. His negligence harmed others and they have a right to recover.
It may be legally reasonable, but in practicality, It’s a load of used oats.
Arm you shoe it was Negligence?
I didn't know windows bled.
OK, lady, you are entitled to part of his estate. Half a box of condoms or a well-used X-Box. Take your pick.
Yep - the lad took an action that resulted in another’s damages. Being dead doesn’t mean one was right. It’s also common practice for drivers, who were absolutely in the wrong, to sue their victims. A friend was hit on his motorcylce by a truck that ran a red light. He lost a leg and the guy in the truck didn’t have insurance. he sued the friend for damages to his truck and for mental anguish. I understand it is a standard ploy to mitigate any damages by the perp being sued by the victim. I think that’s a lot more aggregious than the lady suing the kid’s estate.
No, I do not think the parents are responsible, anymore than if he had robbed a convenience store. He may have had some assets, a car or a trust fund from his grandparents.
The kid may or may not have had life insurance. It’s probably some legal base the insurance has to cover before it pays the victim itself.
I don’t see anything wrong with it.
No different if he had jumped off a building and landed on someone.
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.