Most Ridiculous Lawsuit of the Week...

[Virtual Jarmo]

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.

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/ ... ck_picks=1

Amazing. Last week, blind people were suing Redbox because it's hard for them to rent movies and now dead people are being sued for their flying body parts.

What a country I live in.

[Bruins_GM]

That's absurd. I'm surprised she didn't try to sue Amtrak as well.

[SharksGM]

Man, the woman literally saw a person smashed to smithereens in front of her, then has his body fall on top of her and break her leg and wrist. Don't tell me you wouldn't have freaked out if that happened to you.

I mean if the kid had jumped off a building and landed on top of her, don't you think she would have had an easy case? The part that's something of a stretch is whether the guy would have had a reasonable expectation of having his body parts hit bystanders, which I think is not so clear in this case. But there definitely is a reasonable expectation of getting hit by a train if you're dumb enough to cross the tracks without looking both ways.

[Virtual Jarmo]

Man, the woman literally saw a person smashed to smithereens in front of her, then has his body fall on top of her and break her leg and wrist. Don't tell me you wouldn't have freaked out if that happened to you.

I mean if the kid had jumped off a building and landed on top of her, don't you think she would have had an easy case? The part that's something of a stretch is whether the guy would have had a reasonable expectation of having his body parts hit bystanders, which I think is not so clear in this case. But there definitely is a reasonable expectation of getting hit by a train if you're dumb enough to cross the tracks without looking both ways.

I would have freaked out, for sure, but this is an accidental death. By all accounts, the kid wasn't trying to commit suicide, or at least the article doesn't specify that. In your hypothetical, the kid would be committing suicide. If he were pushed, then the pusher could be liable. That's reasonable.

If a semi swerves to avoid an accident in front of it, rolls onto its side and somebody runs into the top of the trailer and dies, that's not really the truck driver's fault.

I don't see where negligence comes into play. Was he supposed to know that he would be blown to bits and his torso would hit a lady waiting on a train?

If the medical examiner rules the death accidental, I don't see how you're supposed to be responsible for your body parts. There's no basis for a case.

[Montreal Canadiens]

This was front page of the local news:

A mere 28 years after he reported his 10-speed bike had been stolen, Anthony Roche of Esquimalt is back in the saddle.

Roche, now 49, had his social insurance number engraved into the bike's frame before it went missing. It was turned in to Victoria police late last year, and an officer tracked Roche down after spotting the SIN. — Times Colonist

http://www.timescolonist.com/travel/Esq ... story.html

[Parker]

Getting hit by a train is stupendously negligent. They put up fences and flashing red lights and warning signs and all kinds of shit. You have to be monumentally stupid to get hit by a train in the city. I think the lawsuit is fair. What would be a ridiculous lawsuit would be if the family of the dumbass who got smucked were able to sue Amtrak for causing the dumbass's death.

Adam, in your argument you are equating the actions of a (presumedly sober and competent) truck driver reasonably trying to avoid an accident with those of a teenager who makes a tremendous error in judgment thinking he can beat an oncoming train? To me, they are not even close to similar.

EDIT: To me, the really compelling issue here is if the kid is under 18, he's not legally responsible for his actions and wouldn't be eligible for a negligence lawsuit. Never mind the fact it's unlikely the "estate" of someone stupid enough to die this way probably wouldn't amount to much anyway. The guy probably died owing money.

EDIT x2: Oh wait, he's 18. Never mind the first part.

[Parker]

What are you doing at cafemom.com anyway, homo?

[Virtual Jarmo]

What are you doing at cafemom.com anyway, homo?

Saw it linked somewhere.

Already got blasted on another board for thinking this was a stupid lawsuit. Apparently not. Kid was supposed to know his body parts would hit a woman waiting on a train.

[Parker]

Already got blasted on another board for thinking this was a stupid lawsuit. Apparently not. Kid was supposed to know his body parts would hit a woman waiting on a train.

You're focusing on the wrong part. The kid isn't expected to be able to predict exactly what's going to happen to his dismembered corpse, he's supposed to know better than to be fucking around on train tracks.