It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by maryhinge
 


The article I posted from the Chicago Tribune brings that one up


Two months after Joho's death, another person was killed while crossing the Edgebrook station tracks in Chicago. Joyce Chiriboga, 48, died after being struck while following her sister across the tracks in a case that alleged a Metra engineer had failed to keep lookout and blow the horn in time.


source




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Pixiefyre
 



Unbelievable, 2 deaths that could have been prevented if they would´ve put a simple light and an audio signal there.

Why the railroad is not being held responsible is beyond me. Are these guys payin those judges or something?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainInstaban
 


Don't know, we do hear all kinds of things about Chicago politics so......



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ladyteeny
difficult case really.

firstly he shouldn't have been so stupid as to cross on the train tracks, but he did.

now take the case where you're a middle aged woman, standing on the platform waiting to get a train to work, when suddenly a large body part hits you and breaks your leg, wrist and damages your shoulder. now she can't get to work or even work effectively with a broken wrist. so how is she going to support herself while her broken limbs are mending? what if she doesn't have insurance? should she have to suffer for the mistake of someone else?

i agree it seems callous from the outside, but please try and consider both sides when you're condemning somebody for their actions.


So her failure to prepare for the chance of being unable to work for a short period of time is fine to ignore, but the guy who made a bad decision and lost his life should be sued for her own stupidity too?

You're saying it's about responsibility, what about the responsibility of that woman to have insurance? Or savings? Or even to be a remotely MORAL Human?

I'm sorry, but you've done nothing to change my mind. Any normal person would be sad at the death of a young man in an accident, they'd deal with their own injury and appreciate life a little more. This woman (and I use that term loosely, in my opinion she's barely Human) is hoping to cash in on the tragedy for her own selfish needs.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban



i got jammed up in oceanside one time for 4 hrs when some drunk got run over. amtrak had to send cabs and a bus to pick all of us up and the tracks were closed for something like 6 hrs. if you do something like this you deserve a lawsuit.. stay off the tracks or die. its pretty simple
reply to post by spaceg0at
 


It was a freaking crossing, put there for people to cross, thus be on the tracks.

People lay in pieces and you remain sour because you got 4 hours delayed, up to this day?

I can tell you´re a classy person.....






listen guy i have stuff to do, i dont have time to waste on careless people and their games.

(question) how do u not see a train coming?

(answer) you walk in front of it without looking?

crosswalk or not. yellow line means look both ways or die


this is something a monkey can learn



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by Pixiefyre
 



Unbelievable, 2 deaths that could have been prevented if they would´ve put a simple light and an audio signal there.

Why the railroad is not being held responsible is beyond me. Are these guys payin those judges or something?



there is a yellow line, you cross it at your own risk. look both ways... thats how amtrak stations work


if you are lost ask for help. and dont run on the platform.. these are rules that posted everywhere



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by spaceg0at
 


Since you can´t seem to learn the circumstances to this story, I´ll assume that the monkey is brighter than you are.

This guy walks up to the crossing with his head under his umbrella, he looks up before he crosses and sees his train arriving, just like it´s scheduled.

As he crosses without further looking, assuming that the train he saw was his train that is supposed to stop before the crossing, it turns out it was a speeding Amtrack that was on the track that his regular train was supposed to be on at that time.

There was no indication that anything was out of the ordinairy so he crosses without further looking, because based on his experience, there is no train comming.

Maybe he should´ve kept constant visual contact before he crossed, but with an unguarded crossing like this, you can wait for accidents to happen. Murphy´s Law.

2 people are dead and it should have been prevented by simple, common sense safety measures, that the crossing a hundred yards further does seem to have.

Do you understand now perhaps, or do you need the monkey to tutor you?

Why isn´t this stuff obvious, there is not a single crossing in my county that is not guarded with lights and audio, or gates with both. Seems common sense to me, maybe it´s not in America.

edit on 30-12-2011 by CaptainInstaban because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Even if you agree with the courts findings that he was liable for her injuries there is still reason for outrage over this.

The person who's body parts injured her was 18, thus an adult in the state of Illinois. As such his family is not responsible for carrying the financial burden of her lawsuit against his estate. At 18 years old it is very unlikely there is much if anything in the way of an estate to lay claim to.

So knowing that, what would be the purpose of suing his estate ......the only thing it serves to do is inflict ongoing pain on his family members



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by ladyteeny
difficult case really.

firstly he shouldn't have been so stupid as to cross on the train tracks, but he did.

now take the case where you're a middle aged woman, standing on the platform waiting to get a train to work, when suddenly a large body part hits you and breaks your leg, wrist and damages your shoulder. now she can't get to work or even work effectively with a broken wrist. so how is she going to support herself while her broken limbs are mending? what if she doesn't have insurance? should she have to suffer for the mistake of someone else?

i agree it seems callous from the outside, but please try and consider both sides when you're condemning somebody for their actions.


So her failure to prepare for the chance of being unable to work for a short period of time is fine to ignore, but the guy who made a bad decision and lost his life should be sued for her own stupidity too?

You're saying it's about responsibility, what about the responsibility of that woman to have insurance? Or savings? Or even to be a remotely MORAL Human?

I'm sorry, but you've done nothing to change my mind. Any normal person would be sad at the death of a young man in an accident, they'd deal with their own injury and appreciate life a little more. This woman (and I use that term loosely, in my opinion she's barely Human) is hoping to cash in on the tragedy for her own selfish needs.


everything isn't always black and white is it. you and most of the posters on here are making assumptions based on the limited info that you have.

however, how could anybody prepare for an accident to befall them that isn't of their own doing? if she'd been doing something that had in some way contributed to the eventual outcome, then yes i agree, she wouldn't deserve anything. however she's an innocent bystander, who for all your know could be now unable to pay her mortgage and have had her lawyer advise her that the only recourse to not lose her home is to sue somebody.

it's sad the lad lost his life, of course... but that doesn't take away from the fact that it must be extremely traumatic to not only be hit by a severed limb, but to also be incapacitated financially and bodily because of it. lets not forget it's not exactly a walk in the park to have a broken leg and wrist. why on earth would anybody make provision for an accident that somebody else causes?

so if you're on a train platform, minding your own business, and you get injured bad enough not to work for a few months because of somebody else's bad judgement/mistake, YOU are supposed to make sure that YOU are covered for it? how does that work??
edit on 30-12-2011 by ladyteeny because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2011 by ladyteeny because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


spot on



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaceg0at

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by Pixiefyre
 



Unbelievable, 2 deaths that could have been prevented if they would´ve put a simple light and an audio signal there.

Why the railroad is not being held responsible is beyond me. Are these guys payin those judges or something?



there is a yellow line, you cross it at your own risk. look both ways... thats how amtrak stations work


if you are lost ask for help. and dont run on the platform.. these are rules that posted everywhere


I had a look on google maps for the station and while im not 100% sure this is the exact spot the accident happened you can see its pretty open and its a bit clearer just how an accident could happen.




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


That´s not the spot. Someone posted the info from the lawsuits and it said that there were no visual or audio signals nor gates installed at the crossing were he was hit.

In this pic you can see the gates and lights.

Pixiefyre found this,


On the date in question, Hiroyuki intended to board Metra’s Chicago-bound commuter train number 2602. The train was scheduled to arrive at Edgebrook station at 7:50 a.m. but was delayed. Because of the delay, Amtrak train number 330 had executed a crossover maneuver. As a result of the crossover, the Amtrak train approached Edgebrook station about the time the Metra train was scheduled to arrive at the station. The crossover maneuver was guided by Canadian Pacific, which was responsible for rail traffic control on the Milwaukee district line. Canadian Pacific at that time was not required to notify Metra when an Amtrak train was approaching or passing through Edgebrook station. ¶ 5 Hiroyuki entered Edgebrook station on the east passenger platform. A line of bushes and trees obstructed Hiroyuki’s ability to see the approaching Amtrak train until he was on the platform. Because the west platform at the Edgebrook station is ordinarily used by passengers to board Chicago-bound trains, Hiroyuki attempted to cross the tracks at a designated pedestrian railroad crossing. There were no audible or visual warning devices or a crossing gate at the pedestrian crossing to warn passengers of approaching trains. There were audible and visual warning devices at the alternative railroad crossing near Devon Avenue located about 100 yards south of the pedestrian crossing. Metra did not announce the approach of the Amtrak train on the loudspeakers located along both passenger platforms. Plaintiff alleged that as Hiroyuki crossed the tracks, he was aware of the approaching Amtrak train but believed it to be the Metra train he intended to board. Plaintiff claimed the light, sound and appearance of the Amtrak train were inadequate to dissuade Hiroyuki of his assumption that the approaching train was Metra train number 2602 which was scheduled to stop at Edgebrook station. The Amtrak train passed through the station at about 70 miles per hour, striking and killing Hiroyuki.

edit on 30-12-2011 by CaptainInstaban because: (no reason given)



edit on 30-12-2011 by CaptainInstaban because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


No, my son who will be 35 January 7th was driving down the street and some 80 year old woman pulled right out in front of him. He didn't have time to stop without hitting her. She was pulling out from seeing her eye doctor. The police said she was blind as a bat. She said she had to save up to get glasses and could just now afford them.

Now my son's car was old so he got zero for it, her car was old.

My son could have sued her, He now didn't have a car and a job interview the following day. We had a old junk spare car we were lucky enough to give him.

The old woman who drove a junk car as well and dressed in cheap clothes (didn't have money) sent him $250.00 with a I'm sorry card the following week.

The policeman mentioned to my son he could get a lawyer and sue and my son said, "Look, she's a feeble old woman who should have had her son or daughter driving her and she's evidently in as bad financial shape as me - I don't kick anyone when they are down, I was raised to help em up. Especially animals, children and the elderly.

Made me proud - we really needed that car but thank God, nobody was hurt...........both cars totaled and not worth a dime.

Not all Americans sue................my son didn't

I also back in my early 20's got my right hand smashed in a dough press because they didn't have rubber grips on the stools we had to stand on.

Why didn't I sue? I almost lost my right three fingers pinky, other and middle.

I didn't see a bill, not one bill. The company made sure I had the very best hand surgeon, originally the ER doctor wanted to amputate all three fingers as they were paper thin and black as tar.

The company spokesperson that accompanied me, I was in shock - told the ER doctor, "You go away, far far away I want you to get Dr. B here right now and that is a order!".

I didn't sue, could have but my company put rubber grips on (as the ambulance pulled out with me in it) and they paid my medical bill and full pay for the month I was off.

When I came back I was told we no longer had a quota and to slow down - they also replaced the safety bars with better ones.

I can now tell if it's going to rain or snow when my right hand aches.

No, not all Americans are greedy.

Many of us are decent.

Judge each person as you meet them and don't lump one group together.

That's being prejudice.
edit on 30-12-2011 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2011 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainInstaban
 


Yes read my location.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


You should be rightly proud of yourself for raising a son with decent values, and who knows what's genuinely important in life.


No, I don't mean to bracket all Americans in the same category, but there is such a litigious, materialistic and money-driven culture which permeates throughout many aspects of society there.

Having said that, Britain isn't really that much better in this regard, and the culture of making some quick money by suing has increased drastically in the last 10-15 years, leading to many councils, schools, hospitals, etc. introducing ridiculously over-zealous ''health and safety regulations'' to prevent any potential lawsuits.

Some schools have even prohibited children from playing conkers in the schoolyard, for fear of parents suing if a child receives an ''injury'' during the course of the game !


edit on 30-12-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Thank you.


And this was the child from hell, I've talked about in many of my post.

He has ADHD and at 58 (59 next month) I am still recovering from raising him.

Have two others but they were not as difficult.

The oldest one was ruff. (pun intended) I'm in a dog gone good mood tonight.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by spaceg0at
 


Since you can´t seem to learn the circumstances to this story, I´ll assume that the monkey is brighter than you are.

This guy walks up to the crossing with his head under his umbrella, he looks up before he crosses and sees his train arriving, just like it´s scheduled.

As he crosses without further looking, assuming that the train he saw was his train that is supposed to stop before the crossing, it turns out it was a speeding Amtrack that was on the track that his regular train was supposed to be on at that time.

There was no indication that anything was out of the ordinairy so he crosses without further looking, because based on his experience, there is no train comming.

Maybe he should´ve kept constant visual contact before he crossed, but with an unguarded crossing like this, you can wait for accidents to happen. Murphy´s Law.

2 people are dead and it should have been prevented by simple, common sense safety measures, that the crossing a hundred yards further does seem to have.

Do you understand now perhaps, or do you need the monkey to tutor you?

Why isn´t this stuff obvious, there is not a single crossing in my county that is not guarded with lights and audio, or gates with both. Seems common sense to me, maybe it´s not in America.

edit on 30-12-2011 by CaptainInstaban because: (no reason given)





since you can't seem to read correctly

go back to the start of your rant and change (walking) to (running) in the (rain) "thats" what the source link says.




so running blindly with and open umbrella across the railway is completely acceptable ?


the first careless and irresponsible act was running on the platform where he could have tripped and knocked someone else in front of the train.

the second was crossing the yellow without looking.

who are you calling a monkey anyway mummar? ooga booga

from the amtrak page :
www.amtrak.com...

Arrive at least 30 minutes before your train is due to depart. Some stations require more time.
Check-in early to arrange for pre-boarding if you need extra time or assistance.
Watch your step on station stairs, escalators and train platforms.
Stand back from the edge of the platform.
Be careful when crossing the gap between the train and platform.


he was late and running in the rain..

had no time to ask for assistance

did not watch his step

did not stand back from platform

was not careful when crossing


who's the monkey ? im still alive

here is a picture of the yellow line that keeps this monkey alive

s17.postimage.org...




don't forget the other part of his boo boo. trains shut down..

kids come home from school and their parents are miles away stuck on a train all night


break it down enough for ya brah?


stay the hell away from me if you're at the station



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
bottom line... you get hit by a train ... it's your fault

t



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by trustnothing
LOL usual crap from America, tragic example in this case but your "jump in front of a car and sue the driver culture" is a joke. Can I sue all you fruitcakes for emotional stress re all the end of the world /nibiru nonsense? Well considering an American sued god.... I love this quote from that case, sums it all up

"The Constitution requires that the courthouse doors be open, so you cannot prohibit the filing of suits," Chambers says. "Anyone can sue anyone they choose, even God."

If anyone is liable it should be the operators (person was injured standing on their platform by a freak accident) and it should be to the extent of her medical bills not a penny more, going after the family is low.
If I was the judge I would reward her medical expenses,then deduct for moral and ethical purposes and for not having a shred of empathy or soul.she would walk away with a negative cool million.So the next person that shows up with a lawsuit like this will think real hard about being greedy.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ladyteeny
it's sad the lad lost his life, of course... but that doesn't take away from the fact that it must be extremely traumatic to not only be hit by a severed limb, but to also be incapacitated financially and bodily because of it. lets not forget it's not exactly a walk in the park to have a broken leg and wrist. why on earth would anybody make provision for an accident that somebody else causes?


Why would anyone make a provision for an act of God? And yet millions of people take out insurance against fire and flood every year, are they not covering their butts for the unexpected? It's something beyond your control after all. You take provisions (such as having savings) to cover for periods of incapacity.

Last year I left my job for medical reasons. I didn't claim benefits, but I had savings to cover me for a few months while I started my own business. My ill health wasn't the fault of anyone else, and it certainly wasn't the fault of my employer. But my employer was decent enough to pay me all my owed holiday, which I should have legally lost. They did everything they could to get me well enough to return, and they kept my job open until I made the decision that it was an impossible situation.

My point is, sh*t happens. People die. People have accidents. Not EVERYTHING is someones fault. But decent people don't try to find someone to blame for their own misfortune, and they especially don't attack the family of a deceased young man who tragically died in such an accident!

Interesting prospect for you...
If a family died in the house next to you, and your house was damaged, would you feel that it was okay to sue the survivors of that family for the damages to your house? That is effectively what you are suggesting. Accidents are just that, people don't plan them, there is no malicious intent, and in this case his carelessness cost him his life and has caused immeasurable suffering to his family and friends. And yet some people - miraculously - think it's fine for a slightly injured woman to sue them!

I have to say that I really am stunned that there is a single person alive who can even remotely justify this. It just makes me sad that people can be so selfish and greedy.

Never mind that a young man died, I want my CASH!



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join