The woman had two fractures, therefore, she has damages.
The negligence of the pedestrian in crossing the tracks makes him at fault.
And, there is a link between the woman's damages and the negligence of the pedestrian.
Therefore, when you have (1) negligence, (2) causation and (3) damages, you make out a case.
The fact that it is "yuchy" is a bit unusual and a lawyer would have to weigh this aspect in bringing the case to trial, because even if you make out a cause of action, you still may not get a proper recovery, because of the odd nature of the case. The defense of this case would have the same problem: How unusual to get hit by body parts that should not have been there.
My recommendation is to settle the case. But, there is a case.
Best, Mark
Wasn't this discussed a while ago or is this yet another case of 'parts and politics'?
Just because all the elements are in place to make a case, doesn't necessarily mean that you SHOULD make a case.quote:Originally posted by barrister2u:
...when you have (1) negligence, (2) causation and (3) damages, you make out a case...
I cannot, in my widest imagination, see myself suing a grief-stricken family over medical expenses for a few broken bones when they have suffered the ultimate loss.
I find this lawsuit absolutely unbelievable and a shining example of the utmost in selfishness on the part of the woman bringing the suit.
I've been following this thread since Jon first posted it on Tuesday. An awful lot of pontification going on here folks.
First, for Stix, who asked for a main stream media account of this, following pasted in from the New York Daily News of December 29:
Court: Woman can sue dead victim of bizarre train accident
PHILIP CAULFIELD
Thursday, December 29, 2011
An appeals court has ruled that a young man killed in the Chicago area by a speeding train can be sued by a woman who was injured after being struck by a flying piece of his body, according to a local report.
Hiroyuki Joho, 18, was rushing through the rain to catch a Metra commuter train in Edgebrook at around 8 a.m. on Sept. 13, 2008, when he was struck and killed by an Amtrak train clocking more than 70 miles per hour, the Chicago Tribune reports.
Note that neither this report nor the one to which Jon posted the link says how much the lady is suing for or whether she has insurance that would cover her injuries. Before we condemn her, perhaps these facts would be somewhat topical?
I, for one, plan to formulate my opinion AFTER I have seen all the facts.
Curt
First, for Stix, who asked for a main stream media account of this, following pasted in from the New York Daily News of December 29:
Court: Woman can sue dead victim of bizarre train accident
PHILIP CAULFIELD
Thursday, December 29, 2011
An appeals court has ruled that a young man killed in the Chicago area by a speeding train can be sued by a woman who was injured after being struck by a flying piece of his body, according to a local report.
Hiroyuki Joho, 18, was rushing through the rain to catch a Metra commuter train in Edgebrook at around 8 a.m. on Sept. 13, 2008, when he was struck and killed by an Amtrak train clocking more than 70 miles per hour, the Chicago Tribune reports.
Note that neither this report nor the one to which Jon posted the link says how much the lady is suing for or whether she has insurance that would cover her injuries. Before we condemn her, perhaps these facts would be somewhat topical?
I, for one, plan to formulate my opinion AFTER I have seen all the facts.
Curt
Parents should pay 100% of all fees and damages.
Curt
How dare you post a fair, balanced and reasonable opinion?
We don't know of her situation. Was she a maid, nanny or something like that? Paid barely above minimum wage? Insurance? Paid per diem? Being out of work for a few days/weeks could really cost her. The bills for a couple broken bones WILL run into the multiple thousands of dollars. There are a lot of people out there who live just above the poverty line and one stroke of bad luck can ruin someone.
Or she could be rich and completely wacky and wanting to sue for 10 million. The bottom line is that none of us know.
Dave
PS, the court says she has the right to sue the estate of this parson, an ADULT. No where have I seen that the parents are on the hook, only whatever assests he left behind.
How dare you post a fair, balanced and reasonable opinion?
We don't know of her situation. Was she a maid, nanny or something like that? Paid barely above minimum wage? Insurance? Paid per diem? Being out of work for a few days/weeks could really cost her. The bills for a couple broken bones WILL run into the multiple thousands of dollars. There are a lot of people out there who live just above the poverty line and one stroke of bad luck can ruin someone.
Or she could be rich and completely wacky and wanting to sue for 10 million. The bottom line is that none of us know.
Dave
PS, the court says she has the right to sue the estate of this parson, an ADULT. No where have I seen that the parents are on the hook, only whatever assests he left behind.
The lawyer who'd take such a case should be disbarred - and horse-whipped - in any order. Good lord!
quote:
And what does she hope to accomplish with this lawsuit? How much of an estate can the average 18-year-old have? Is she looking to get a free I-phone out of the settlement?
Spare me the cry-me-a-river angle of possible low wages, etc. No argument on this thread favoring the suit holds enough water to convince me otherwise.
Spare me the cry-me-a-river angle of possible low wages, etc. No argument on this thread favoring the suit holds enough water to convince me otherwise.
Guess I didn't realize that they were trying to convince YOU!
Two months after this young boy died there, a lady was struck and killed. Metra was sued and lost, the "award" was for an undisclosed amount. It was claimed the engineer never sounded his "whistle" (horn).
Ed Mullan
Ed Mullan
quote:Originally posted by Hot Water:
Guess I didn't realize that they were trying to convince YOU!
They're not; nor did I ever think they were. Guess YOU are the one to make that assumption.
