You're suing over WHAT????

[LKTraz]

0

Check this crazy shit out!

Goofy lawsuit

[Twitchin Kitten]

0

The First Judicial District of the Illinois Court of Appeals said Zokhrabov may sue because her injuries were foreseeable and Joho owed her a duty of care. The court reversed a trial judge who found that the accident “was not reasonably foreseeable and was instead tragically bizarre,” according to the opinion (PDF).

the part in bold - are you fucking kidding me? How can someone losing a body part after being hit by a train be 'foreseeable'?! Should the poor corpse have grabbed all his flying, separated limbs so they don't hit anyone?

Good thing someone had the sense to reverse that.

[Havoc]

0

So you're saying that a resonable person could not conclude that if they get hit by an express train that some of your body parts might hit an innocent bystander?

[Twitchin Kitten]

0

So you're saying this isn't a frivolous lawsuit against the deceased?

[Havoc]

0

Im saying that at first glance this courts decison

The First Judicial District of the Illinois Court of Appeals said Zokhrabov may sue because her injuries were foreseeable and Joho owed her a duty of care.

may seem like quakery, but when you realize that a person would or should be able to reasonably know that stepping in front of a train where you might possible get hit by it could possibly propel body parts in all directions that could possibly hurt someone standing there, it isn't all that far out there as to not be reasonable.

To me it's no different than shooting a firearm in a place where you should know or should reasonably know that someone might get hurt by it.

[LKTraz]

0

From a purely clinical standpoint they have a valid point.

However......the notion that someone would recklessly step in front of a train moving at speed while holding an umbrella which restricts vision with the thought of the possibility of getting struck which might send rended body parts flying that could strike a bystander is most definitely NOT a reasonable assumption!

As well, the premise that this is a reasonable ground for filing suit against the DECEASED man's estate is at best simply appeasing the plaintiff's ability to file and at worst a fucking insane idea!

[ralgith]

0

How about: The fucking idiot should have known better than to step in front of a train period?

I mean Christ. If your umbrella blocks your view, you move the goddamn thing so that you can see. Otherwise, yes I agree with the court. You are responsible. God, I can't believe I said that considering how much I hate our legal system, but sometimes there should be punishment for blatant stupidity.

[LKTraz]

0

.........but sometimes there should be punishment for blatant stupidity.

Don't ya think DEATH qualifies as suitable punishment?

[Twitchin Kitten]

0

Wasn't there something in the article saying the guy had no way of knowing the train he was crossing in front of was an express train? Some kind of mixup?

I didn't read anything about an umbrella unless someone read the transcript and it was in there.

Seriously though, no one planned to get hit by a train much less think about the flying body parts if one were to get hit. That takes accidents to a new level of responsibility. Everyone would have to weigh the pros and cons of leaving one's home in case something horrible happened to them during the course of the day and there was collateral damage involved.

That woman's injuries were minimal compared to the DEAD PERSON's.

[LKTraz]

0

Most people would come to a conclusion similar to......Damn it! I got hurt by those flying body parts. I should sue! But then again the dumbass is dead so I guess he got his punishment.

Or possibly......Holy shit...I got hurt in that whole affair but at least I'm still alive. That other fucker bit the bullet though.

Anyone who decides to file suit like this woman did is also the same type of person who files suit against the sky because they slipped in the snow.