It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Woman sues family of teenager killed by train - after she was injured by his flying body parts

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:46 PM
reply to post by PhoenixOD
Apologies in advance -

That there's just #ed up.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by n00bUK

From what I can gather, it wasn't suicide, the guy wasn't paying attention while crossing the tracks to catch another train.

And while I cannot condone the womans actions for suing him, she did have an opportunity to cash in, she took it.

Trauma and injuries = nice payout, a lot of people would, especially in todays economic climate.

AGAIN, I DO NOT CONDONE her actions, but I can certainly understand them.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:58 PM
well thats kind of sad , in an odd twisted kind of way.
i guess she as her right to do what she wants, but i still think its messed up to sue someone just because of a freak accident like that.
first off i would be too traumatized by the fact a persons body part knocked me over, i wouldnt even be able to think about suing someone .

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:58 PM
reply to post by n00bUK

Sadly the guy was not attempting to commit suicide, at least according to the Chicago Tribune.

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.

Joho's mother, Jeung-Hee Park, who had just dropped him off before the accident, filed her own lawsuit against Metra and the Canadian Pacific Railway. The lawsuit said both entities were negligent because Joho had no warning that what he thought was his Metra train was actually an express Amtrak train. The Metra train was delayed that day, but there was no announcement on the platform's loudspeakers. A Cook County judge found that the railroads had no duty to warn about such an "open and obvious danger" as a moving train, a decision upheld on appeal.

The Chicago Tribune article

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:05 PM
There's a famous civil suit that has some things in common with this one, in which the court decided that because the outcome was unforeseeable, no one was at fault:

Cause of action: The following is a cause of action for damages as a result of a minor explosion which caused a scale to fall on plaintiff.

Parties: Plaintiff Palsgraf is the woman whom the scale fell on and caused the alleged subsequent damages; defendant railroad company is the party from whom plaintiff seeks damages.

Procedural Facts (what happened in court): Trial court found in favor of plaintiff; defendant appeals.

Substantive Facts (how'd they get to court): Two people were trying to get on a train, which was already on its way out of the station. First person gets on with little trouble. Second person, however, looks as if he was going to fall. Defendant employees of railroad company attempt to help the gentleman get on the train, but in the process a package he was holding escapes his possession. Package is wrapped in newspaper and does not have the look of fireworks, which is what the package turns out to be.

From the impact with the rail lines, the package exploded, and the subsequent shock from the explosion caused several scales on the other end of the platform to fall. Plaintiff struck by one of those scales and causes injury for which she sues.

Issue(s): Was an unforeseen occurrence and subsequent injury the result of defendant's negligent conduct when servant of railroad company attempted to help a patron on the train, and whose package caused the alleged chain of events?

Judge's ruling: Trial court ruling reversed with costs.

Court's Rationale/Reasoning: Defendants never had any idea or reason to know the said package which exploded would contain fireworks. Had there been any reason to know, there would have been a greater duty because the reasonable person under such circumstances would have an understanding of the potential harm. When such a case is not warranted, there is generally no way to link such an innocent action to subsequent events.

If no hazard was apparent to the eye of the ordinary [actor], an act innocent and harmless, at least to outward seeming, with reference to the one harmed by the action, could not be taken to the action of a tort just because something happened to them which was wrong. In addition, "In every instance, before negligence can be predicated of a given act must be sought and found a duty to the individual complaining, the observance of which would have averted or avoided the injury."

Significance: The significance is an unforeseen accident may be held in defendant's charge if the proximate cause or legal cause may be linked to the initial negligent action of defendant. Here, there was no negligence on the part of the defendant, who was trying to help a passenger stay aboard a train (which could have caused arguably a greater problem, should that person had fallen off), and their conduct should not be held to start a negligent-related chain of events.

It seems to me that this case will ultimately be decided in the way same way. It's not clear from the article exactly how the kid fell onto the tracks, but it sounds like an accident. A reasonable person wouldn't have foreseen that they would be hit by a train under those circumstances, and certainly wouldn't have foreseen the potential danger their severed limbs would pose to bystanders. Because it was unforeseeable, it isn't anyone's fault.

Originally posted by Vardoger
Spilling coffee on yourself and suing is stupid....

The woman who sued McDonald's after spilling coffee on herself is a case that is infamous because it seems to frivolous, but in fact it's not quite bad as most people think. First of all, the woman got 3rd degree burns, which means that the coffee was ridiculously hot - so hot that it's not really safe to serve to people. People spill things - especially while driving - and it doesn't make sense to serve them liquid that is so hot that they will be badly hurt if they spill it on themselves. Second of all, people had spilled McDonald's coffee on themselves before and had been badly burned. McDonald's had been warned about serving such excessively hot drinks because it poses a danger and it could easily be corrected. If you're serving coffee so hot that people are being injured by it, you should stop. Finally, the woman didn't set out for money. She just wanted an apology from McDonald's, which is not unreasonable considering that she was badly hurt by a product that they made unnecessarily dangerous. She sued only after they wouldn't apologize, and they fought her in court every step of the way. She continued to appeal and McDonald's continued to argue that they bore none of the blame. The courts finally decided in her favor, mostly to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:15 PM
I guess we're getting to the point where someone has to be responsible for when something goes wrong.

First it's his family/estate, then it's the train station for failing to make an announcement?????
What? Not going after 'god' for making it rain?

Seems like serendipity, fate or coincidence has no more place on this planet anymore.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:18 PM
fkin'hell if he wasnt committing suicide then that women is one sick individual. cashing in on somebody's death because there fkin leg hit you is as bad as these companies who insure you and you dont even know about it

Argh, wtf

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Vardoger

The estate of the 18 year old would be his family. This female dog is going to sue the family of a dead boy...
absolutely unacceptable...
Spilling coffee on yourself and suing is stupid....this woman is pathetic.

The judge who ruled in favour is worse than pathetic . It is because of such ruling by the judges the people are encouraged to sui when such freak accidents and money making opportunities occur.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:42 PM
Only in America.

A family lost their child, a young man through a freakish accident and the woman is suing.

I say sue the train company, they have the money.

Let AmTrak pay her doctor and therapy bills.

God, leave the poor family alone.............haven't they been through enough, the female dog wants to add injury on top of their misfortune.

It's like here in America we love to kick someone when their down.

God, show some mercy, some compassion.

To lose a kid like that - it was raining, he was in a hurry and yes he did something stupid and paid for it with his life.

I'll tell you, you people are mean sobs that don't see the sadness in all this.

This woman is suing because she sees $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

It's all about the almighty dollar.

The picture below is from the John Carpenter's movie, "They Live"

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:48 PM
That family has enough problems without throwing this at them. The most the lady should be awarded is the cost of medical treatment, if that. Some are just waiting for the chance to sue, thinking they will get rich quick.

edit on 29-12-2011 by DAVID64 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:51 PM
reply to post by ofhumandescent

That picture is so true just add in a credit card perhaps and you have what this world has become. I would also say add in our various nic nacks as well because we have become so physically "dependent" on various things.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:54 PM
reply to post by ofhumandescent

Great post and a great film, " I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass... and I'm all out of bubblegum."

I agree sue the train company, you will not win but at least you could sleep at night.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:57 PM
reply to post by Pixiefyre

Wait is she suing the train company or the family? I think that makes a big difference.

Edit: ahh I reread it now, it was the mother who wanted to sure the train company.
edit on 29-12-2011 by _Phoenix_ because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by _Phoenix_

I believe she sued and won against the family.

The mother had to sue the train company because of the suit the bystander won against her.

We have two lawyers in the family and if you get a half way decent lawyer and with a suit like this you're looking at bankrupting a family and them never being able to afford insurance again.

edit on 29-12-2011 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:22 PM
Is there anything, anything at all, which Americans won't sue someone for ?

Never mind moral values or ethics, litigation must practically be a second income for yanks.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 04:01 PM
reply to post by PhoenixOD

( Portions from the story that I intend to comment on will be in italics )

.............................UNBELIEVABLE!!!! There are so many flaws of logic in this story that I am stunned. Where do I begin?

This appeals court ruling is absurd. The premise is absurd. The lawyer for the injured weakling is absurd.

But the appellate court disagreed. After noting that the case law involving "flying bodies" is sparse, it ruled that "it was reasonably foreseeable" that the high-speed train would kill Joho and fling his body toward a platform where people were waiting.

I will never be convinced otherwise. "Reasonably Foreseeable"? From what I can gather from the story the weather(pouring rain) was able to muffle the sound of the train. This fact combined with the very likely scenario that the young man had his vision blocked by his umbrella combines to show that he did not foresee this happening at all. It seems that the fact that he had a smile on his face makes the court believe this was intentional.

This does not even touch on the fact that the young man's family has zero( 0 ) responsibility for this circus of a legal proceeding. Did his family force him to cross the railway tracks? No. Did a family member throw him in front of the train? No. Only in a warped legal system would his family be made to suffer more through no fault of their own. I use the term legal system because what we have is a far cry from a Justice System.

It seems that the Appellate Judge thinks that two facts would always be 100% accurate and never able to be changed. This judge is making an assumption that the victims projectile of a body would always fly toward the train platform and would always hit a bystander no matter what the circumstances are. This judge is setting a potentially dangerous precedent. People that cause some kind of damage to another while getting killed in the process can now have their families sued if the dead person is found to have caused harm that was "reasonably foreseeable".

This whole case is a perversion. The injured woman deserves nothing nor is entitled to anything from the family of the victim. It seems that the train station or the city would be far more reasonable to sue. After all, the train was running early or some other such nonsense.

In closing I will suggest something absurd. The lawyer for the injured woman had this to say:

"If you do something as stupid as this guy did, you have to be responsible for what comes from it," she said.

The family of Joho should have the ability to sue the practice(and win) of this ambulance chaser. Why? The immense pain and suffering this ordeal is putting on the family of Joho. Also, to speak Ill of the Dead with that blatant cruelty should be grounds for another lawsuit.

I hope this is a hoax case. Although, the source looks legit.
edit on 29-12-2011 by My_Reality because: ERROR!

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:50 PM
Well if this is the case, then she won't mind at all if I follow her to her next train stop and push her in front of speeding train. Afterwards I will proceed to sue her family, for she was too close to the edge of the track and should have known that she could easily be bumped into a passing train and have her body parts flung into nearby passengers.

This is just as stupid as suing McDonald's because you spilled hot coffee on yourself.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Is there anything, anything at all, which Americans won't sue someone for ?

Never mind moral values or ethics, litigation must practically be a second income for yanks.

I have often thought the same.

We see them on tv's Judge Judy every day, even suing their own kids/parents/grandparents, and all for a few dollars. It's obscene.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:12 PM
So what I get from the story, basically the train hit him sending parts flying and hitting someone 100ft away.

Wouldn't the body stay somewhat close to the train? Assuming the front of the train was somewhat flat, it wouldn't send anything up into the air. It's not like anything would accelerate faster than 70mph as well.

edit on 29-12-2011 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:28 PM
reply to post by Turq1

To answer your question:

Story 1: My father was going to go into the undertaker's business so his first assignment (and this was decades ago) was to pick up the remains of a man hit by a train. They handed him a flat shovel and a bag

He found a hand up in a tree near by but fairly high up. My sister said he promptly decided that he would go into another line of work.

Now, while I was in the insurance business we had two death claims.

Story 2: One a man was under a tank truck, the underside doing either repair work or cleaning it. The truck slipped off what ever was holding it up and crushed the man. Another worker near by saw the guys arm fly across the room. This traumatized the other worker so badly he was disabled and had to seek therapy.

Story 3: A woman jumped from a upper hotel ledge (suicide) and her leg and arm broke off and flew quite a bit from the rest of her.

Morbid yes, but these are factual stories

If you are going to do yourself in don't jump from a high ledge, your legs, arms and head can and often do come off.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in