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

I...I can see what she's saying...but...this could mean real problems for the corpse cannon festival this year

FTFA: "Several witnesses said he was smiling as the train hit him."

What in holy hell does that have to do with the article?

"30 Helens agreed that he was wearing Adidas trainers as he was mown down by the 8:30 to Schenectady."

/I despair for modern journalism, I really do

gweilo8888: FTFA: "Several witnesses said he was smiling as the train hit him."

What in holy hell does that have to do with the article?

Because the bastard was suiciding, and his intentional actions resulted in unintentional body parts hurting an innocent third party.

I suppose if the dead can vote, they should be able to stand trial. Or lie trial, or something. With rights come responsibilities.

Also, I think the trial should be conducted in a location convenient to the accused. Which, I guess, is the afterlife.

gweilo8888: What in holy hell does that have to do with the article?

He was at Peace before turning into Pieces

gweilo8888: FTFA: "Several witnesses said he was smiling as the train hit him."

What in holy hell does that have to do with the article?

"30 Helens agreed that he was wearing Adidas trainers as he was mown down by the 8:30 to Schenectady."

/I despair for modern journalism, I really do

I am guessing that because he was smiling, that means that he meant to step in front of the train and injure people with his flying body parts.

What sort of cruel b*tch sues a man who was ripped apart because she broke a couple bones as a result? Who would even think of putting the survivors of the deceased through that sort of thing? Wrong person got hit by a train that day.

If you accidentally drive your car into someone, you're responsible. It doesn't mean they'll win the case, but I can understand letting it be heard. Someone through careless action, caused another to be injured.

As for the smiling, could it have been suicide? Otherwise, it doesn't really fit in the article as is.

And we continue to vote for liberal progressive people and then wonder why there are frivolous cases that should simply be put in the lines of suck it up and move on.

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

I...I can see what she's saying...but...this could mean real problems for the corpse cannon festival this year

Couldn't she just say "irresponsible" instead of "stupid"?

/that dude is dead

CruJones:
As for the smiling, could it have been suicide? Otherwise, it doesn't really fit in the article as is.

Deep down inside he knew the old biatch on the platform was finally going to get a piece of him.

gweilo8888: FTFA: "Several witnesses said he was smiling as the train hit him."

What in holy hell does that have to do with the article?

"30 Helens agreed that he was wearing Adidas trainers as he was mown down by the 8:30 to Schenectady."

/I despair for modern journalism, I really do

"30 Helens"? Is this a new unit.of measurement I'm not aware of? If so, I'd postulate that 1 Helen is equivalent to 4 Brandis.

Teen Wolf Blitzer: gweilo8888: FTFA: "Several witnesses said he was smiling as the train hit him."

What in holy hell does that have to do with the article?

"30 Helens agreed that he was wearing Adidas trainers as he was mown down by the 8:30 to Schenectady."

/I despair for modern journalism, I really do

"30 Helens"? Is this a new unit.of measurement I'm not aware of? If so, I'd postulate that 1 Helen is equivalent to 4 Brandis.

It's enough beauty to launch thirty thousand ships.

gweilo8888: FTFA: "Several witnesses said he was smiling as the train hit him."

What in holy hell does that have to do with the article?

Without knowing more about the circumstances of his date with the train, one could argue that if he was smiling immediately before impact, he may not have realized that he was about to become roadkill. This would tend to show that he did not foresee being hit by the train (and his body turning into a projectile which allegedly caused injury the plaintiff as heretofore described etc. etc. ad nauseum).

Maybe he got too close to the train in such a way that a jury would find was not objectively unreasonable or that his body injuring bystanders was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence.

It makes sense to me. Certainly, if he was intentionally trying to kill himself, his actions led to someone being injured and they have a reasonable claim against his estate. Even if it was an accident though, he should have known not to be on those train tracks. His recklessness led to someone else being seriously injured.

bdub77: Calling it a "tragically bizarre" case, an Illinois appeals court has ruled that a man killed by a train while crossing the tracks at a Chicago Metra station can be held responsible after part of his body struck and injured a bystander.

In 2008, Hiroyuki Joho, 18, was hurrying in the pouring rain with an umbrella over his head, trying to catch a Metra train, when he was struck by an Amtrak train traveling at more than 70 mph.


You'd think a suicidal Japanese guy living in Chicago would do the right thing and commit Harry Caray.

*you owe me a keyboard fyi

I was previously unaware that it was possible to sue the dead. Do you just get a portion of what was left in the will, or do you try and get the family to pay?

Anyway, I can understand wanting my medical bills to be paid if some dumbass through his own negligence ended up flying into me and breaking several of my bones.

I hate the court system let alone our wonderful Illinois law system. It's logic for christ sake. let me break it down for them in a create your own adventure.

Page 1
Man dies from being hit by a train. Did he...
Commit suicide? (turn to page 2)
Not see the train because of rain and an umbrella? (turn to page 3)
Was pushed onto the train tracks by his jilted lover? (turn to page 4)

Page 2
Man hates life and decides the best way to go is to get hit by a train. He jumps in front of a speeding locomotive and parts of his body are thrown so hard it seriously injures a bystander. HE IS AN IDIOT. HE IS LIABLE. The end.

Page 3
In the pouring rain, the man has no idea what is about to happen. The young 18 year old, in a hurry to catch the metro, rushes across the tracks but is sadly stopped 1/2 way by a oncoming train. In a gruesome side note, his body is strung and parts hit a woman who is injured. HE DIDN'T DO IT ON PURPOSE. NO SUIT FOR YOU! The end.

Page 4
After a brief argument over why he was wearing the jeans that his ex-girlfriend bought him, He turned around to leave and his girlfriend pushed into an oncoming train. However, lucky for the girlfriend she is related to a guy who knows a guy who is friends with an Illinois judge. She gets off scot-free and actually sues the mans estate and wins all the money. The End

Visionmn2: And we continue to vote for liberal progressive people and then wonder why there are frivolous cases that should simply be put in the lines of suck it up and move on.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah those cons who have such a bad case of hallucinated persecution complex that they came up with "The War On Christmas" are known for sucking it up and moving on.

Visionmn2: And we continue to vote for liberal progressive people and then wonder why there are frivolous cases that should simply be put in the lines of suck it up and move on.

Why do you think this is a frivolous case? If you do something stupid and your stupidity causes someone else to become injured, you should pay for the damage you caused. That's not even controversial.

This isn't "Oh, I was horribly distraught by seeing a man die under a train" or "I got a splash of liquified brain on my sweater." The woman alleges that she suffered broken bones from the incident.

/I just got trolled, didn't I?

bdub77: You'd think a suicidal Japanese guy living in Chicago would do the right thing and commit Harry Caray.

Ooooh...very nice. You get votied.

CruJones

As for the smiling, could it have been suicide? Otherwise, it doesn't really fit in the article as is.

If you were going to kill yourself why try to stay dry under an,umbrella?

The Whole Farking Beefalo: Page 2
Man hates life and decides the best way to go is to get hit by a train. He jumps in front of a speeding locomotive and parts of his body are thrown so hard it seriously injures a bystander. HE IS AN IDIOT. HE IS LIABLE. The end.

Page 3
In the pouring rain, the man has no idea what is about to happen. The young 18 year old, in a hurry to catch the metro, rushes across the tracks but is sadly stopped 1/2 way by a oncoming train. In a gruesome side note, his body is strung and parts hit a woman who is injured. HE DIDN'T DO IT ON PURPOSE. NO SUIT FOR YOU! The end.

Your theory of the law is that people can only be liable when they do something intentionally. Negligence as a theory of legal responsibility is hundreds of years old and doesn't require that the you do something morally wrong or selfish or with the intention to harm yourself or others.

That's not just Illinois. It's every jurisdiction in the United States.

I doubt the guy was suicidal. This sort of thing happens about every two or three months in the Chicago suburbs: a train is stopped at the station, blocking the view of commuters who need to cross the tracks to catch the train going in the opposite direction. What they don't know (and can't see) is the express train that is coming from the opposite direction. Something like this happened just this week. Old guy was in a hurry and didn't want to wait at the grade crossing for a train that was just sitting at the station. So he drove around the gates and was immediately slammed by an express train going in the opposite direction -- which he couldn't see because of the train that was stopped at the station. Took thirty minutes just to pry his body from the mangled wreck of his car.

What's she hoping to win in the case? Dude was 18 when the train hit him, there's no way his estate has any significant wealth to pay off a lawsuit unless he had a trust fund or something.

Bob16: Visionmn2: And we continue to vote for liberal progressive people and then wonder why there are frivolous cases that should simply be put in the lines of suck it up and move on.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah those cons who have such a bad case of hallucinated persecution complex that they came up with "The War On Christmas" are known for sucking it up and moving on.

That's totally different. Why do you hate Baby Jesus(TM)?

rebelyell2006: gweilo8888: FTFA: "Several witnesses said he was smiling as the train hit him."

What in holy hell does that have to do with the article?

Because the bastard was suiciding, and his intentional actions resulted in unintentional body parts hurting an innocent third party.

angry_scientist: gweilo8888: What in holy hell does that have to do with the article?

He was at Peace before turning into Pieces

timbrr_wolf: gweilo8888: FTFA: "Several witnesses said he was smiling as the train hit him."

What in holy hell does that have to do with the article?

"30 Helens agreed that he was wearing Adidas trainers as he was mown down by the 8:30 to Schenectady."

/I despair for modern journalism, I really do

I am guessing that because he was smiling, that means that he meant to step in front of the train and injure people with his flying body parts.

indylaw: gweilo8888: FTFA: "Several witnesses said he was smiling as the train hit him."

What in holy hell does that have to do with the article?

Without knowing more about the circumstances of his date with the train, one could argue that if he was smiling immediately before impact, he may not have realized that he was about to become roadkill. This would tend to show that he did not foresee being hit by the train (and his body turning into a projectile which allegedly caused injury the plaintiff as heretofore described etc. etc. ad nauseum).

Maybe he got too close to the train in such a way that a jury would find was not objectively unreasonable or that his body injuring bystanders was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence.

Thank you all for nicely proving that the assertion that he was smiling means absolutely nothing. 50% of you read it to mean it was intentional, 50% of you read it to mean it was deliberate, and 100% of you are reading too much into something that's quite likely not even true anyway (witnesses generally have terrible memories after seeing horrific incidents like this.)

Mitrovarr: What's she hoping to win in the case? Dude was 18 when the train hit him, there's no way his estate has any significant wealth to pay off a lawsuit unless he had a trust fund or something.

His estate may have filed a wrongful death action against the commuter rail service.

Marky got with Sharon
And Sharon got Cherese
She was sharing Sharon's outlook
On the topic of disease
Mikey had a facial scar
And Bobby was a racist
They were all in love with dyin'
They were doing it in Texas
Tommy played piano
Like a kid out in the rain
Then he lost his leg in Dallas
He was dancing with a train
They were all in love with dyin'
They were drinking from a fountain
That was pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain

I don't mind the sun sometimes
The images it shows
I can taste you on my lips
And smell you in my clothes
Cinnamon and sugary
And softly spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain

I don't mind the sun sometimes
The images it shows
I can taste you on my lips
And smell you in my clothes
Cinnamon and sugary
And softly spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Another Mikey took a knife
While arguing in traffic
Flipper died a natural death
He caught a nasty virus
Then there was the ever-present
Football player rapist
They were all in love with dyin'
They were doing it in Texas
Pauly caught a bullet
But it only hit his leg
Well it should have been a better shot
and got him in the head
They were all in love with dyin'
They were drinking from a fountain
That was pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain

I don't mind the sun sometimes
The images it shows
I can taste you on my lips
And smell you in my clothes
Cinnamon and sugary
And softly spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Harry Freakstorm: she can't sue Metra or Amtrak directly

Why not?

Surely they knew that there was a risk that a train could collide with somebody that was on or near the tracks, sending Teh Giblets flying and creating hazardous conditions for bystanders.

It's the railroad's own fault, they were negligent in not placing tall concrete barriers on both sides of every mile of train right-of-way they own. Attractive nuisance.

Harry Freakstorm: swahnhennessy
What sort of cruel b*tch sues a man who was ripped apart because she broke a couple bones as a result? Who would even think of putting the survivors of the deceased through that sort of thing? Wrong person got hit by a train that day.

Well, she can't sue Metra or Amtrak directly, but I'm guessing the deceased's family is going after a wrongful death. Their defense is that the deceased had probably crossed the very same tracks a dozen times before and was never exploded by a 70 mph train.

The old Herman Cain defense! For every one of these trains that hits me, there will be dozens who can testify that they didn't.

I'm sure there is no possible way, none whatsoever, that there is any collusion going on in the court system between the judges and sue happy lawyers.

This case is in no way an example of what may be evidence of that.

What 18 year old even has an estate?

Mitrovarr: What's she hoping to win in the case? Dude was 18 when the train hit him, there's no way his estate has any significant wealth to pay off a lawsuit unless he had a trust fund or something.

In some states (I don't know about Illinois) homeowner's or renter's policies also include general liability coverage for injuries caused by negligence.

ZAZ: Also, I've seen weirder cases. Among my favorites is this one, which answers a nagging question: If your teen boyfriend dies while having sex in a car and you dump the body outside his mother's house, can she sue you for emotional distress?

Sorry I don't see why that is weird. If you consciously choose to dump a kids body in front of their mother's house, it is perfectly foreseeable that you'd likely cause distress to the mother. That's the kind of situation that suing for distress is meant for.

indylaw: The Whole Farking Beefalo: Page 2
Man hates life and decides the best way to go is to get hit by a train. He jumps in front of a speeding locomotive and parts of his body are thrown so hard it seriously injures a bystander. HE IS AN IDIOT. HE IS LIABLE. The end.

Page 3
In the pouring rain, the man has no idea what is about to happen. The young 18 year old, in a hurry to catch the metro, rushes across the tracks but is sadly stopped 1/2 way by a oncoming train. In a gruesome side note, his body is strung and parts hit a woman who is injured. HE DIDN'T DO IT ON PURPOSE. NO SUIT FOR YOU! The end.

Your theory of the law is that people can only be liable when they do something intentionally. Negligence as a theory of legal responsibility is hundreds of years old and doesn't require that the you do something morally wrong or selfish or with the intention to harm yourself or others.

That's not just Illinois. It's every jurisdiction in the United States.

Your name is IndyLaw. I will not win this argument under the assumption that it isn't just a clever name. So I will just say this, do a jig, and leave.

People who would sue others after a horrific accident like this that wasn't on purpose should have been the ones in the accident. They are Class One assholes.

/Jig
//out

gweilo8888: FTFA: "Several witnesses said he was smiling as the train hit him."

What in holy hell does that have to do with the article?

"30 Helens agreed that he was wearing Adidas trainers as he was mown down by the 8:30 to Schenectady."

/I despair for modern journalism, I really do

...wow...

*clearly* if he had been wearing Nikes instead of Adidas, the train couldn't have caught him running.

Sticky Hands: What 18 year old even has an estate?

Every person who dies has an estate. "Estate" just a fancy construct for managing the disposition of a person's assets and liabilities once he or she is dead or bankrupt.

If you die and owe someone money, he/she/it can't sue you, because you're not a person any more. They sue the administrator of your estate.

Estate doesn't mean "A big pot of money and property." That's the common usage of it, but not the legal definition.

indylaw: In some states (I don't know about Illinois) homeowner's or renter's policies also include general liability coverage for injuries caused by negligence.

That would add a new wrinkle to the case - the insurance company, if there is one, might very well testify that, since the injury only happened after their client's death, that the policy had expired.

Not sure why she needs to sue him... she already got an arm and leg...

The Whole Farking Beefalo: Your name is IndyLaw. I will not win this argument under the assumption that it isn't just a clever name. So I will just say this, do a jig, and leave.

People who would sue others after a horrific accident like this that wasn't on purpose should have been the ones in the accident. They are Class One assholes.

/Jig
//out

Well... bye.

/What if, say, someone were climbing a building as part of a stunt, fell off and landed on your car with you in it. Would you just shrug and say "sh*t happens"?

epoc_tnac: I was previously unaware that it was possible to sue the dead. Do you just get a portion of what was left in the will, or do you try and get the family to pay?

Of course you can sue the dead -- you sue their estate. Imagine some rich guy drives drunk and gets killed while plowing into you and severely injuring you. It only makes sense that you'd get money from his estate (or his insurance that covered him at the time) for what he did.