Was that an arm or a leg?
 

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_ne...&quick_picks=1


Honestly I'd do the same thing. Now I wouldnt sue for some stupid amount but I'd make sure my medical bills were paid for and any future hospital visits were paid for.

"If you were in the injured woman's shoes, would you sue, too?"

No.

I'd make a citizen's arrest, and ziptie his severed torso to a pole until the police arrived.

JC

This sort of thing happens all the time, in things like car collisions. Truth is that the 'kid' is nominally an adult, so this woman can't leverage the parents' money. She's not going to get a whole lot, if anything, unless he was a trust fund baby.

lets put her on the train tracks, with a busted leg she wont be able to gimp too fast and the train will finish the job/

Creating the suit is one thing, a court allowing it is an entirely different level of idiot.

Jus tthe fact that these idiots will go before a judge to even argue it takes time away from them dealing with other legal matters.

Consider how much such an injury might cost someone, who doesn't have helth insurance. Who should pay for that?

I am sure the railroad companies have deep pockets, sue them for making trains that are unsafe or cant stop in time.

I'm gonna take the person who CHOSE not to insure themselves for $500, Alex.

They bear no fault in the stupidity of another.

So you think that people should pay for the mistakes of others? How unconservative of you.

Neither did mcdonalds but when that lady spilled coffee on herself they had to pay. I think fo rme I am just so sick of stuff ALWYS being someone elses fault and someone else has t bear the responsibility. I know this is a little different but you could also argue maybe the lady shouldnt have been standing where she was or been more alert to her surroundings.

Of the two lawsuits, Joho's mother suit comes across as frivolous.
I haven't seen the details on the Zokhrabov lawsuit and what she is asking for so I'm not going to pass judgement on it. For all I know she is suing for some medical costs not covered by her own insurance. His negligence lead to her injury. How the fuck did he cross the tracks if trains were coming?

Don't see any issue with this, kid did something stupid and hurt someone else. Whatever money the kid had should pay to fix the lady back up. Dipshit kid is dipshit.

People always mention the McDonald's case :lol:

Funny thing is that the McDonald's case was legitimate. I've read about it, extensively. The fact that she sued her mother and the car manufacturer aside McDonald's had been put on notice, multiple times and in multiple jurisdictions, that they were serving their coffee too hot. They persisted. She sued. She won.

So the woman at the train station should have been "more aware of her surroundings"? I don't know about you but I'm generally not expecting body parts to get lobbed at me, while I'm waiting for a train. You can't blame the victim, of someone else's stupidity. She bore no responsibility, in the matter, but did receive injury.

you sir have not ridden NYC subway system

That's where people push you at trains, not vise-versa.

Im with ya papa.

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/...0/brofist5.jpg

It's an ER thing.

Thank you.

I really don't like it when people throw the McDonald's case out there. That was a legitimate claim that the media has gone crazy with. I'm sure McDonald's had nothing to do with that spin doctor...

So, according to the ruling with opinion;

"...When Zokhrabov motioned for partial summary judgment as to proximate
causation, Park cross-motioned for summary judgment on the ground that her son owed no actionable duty to Zokhrabov, and the court ruled in Park’s favor. Zokhrabov appeals. She contends the trial court recognized the governing principles of law, but failed to apply them correctly..."

blah... blah... blah...


"¶ 22 We, therefore, find that the trial judge erred in holding that the defendant owed the plaintiff no duty of care. We reverse the entry of summary judgment as to duty and remand Zokhrabov's case for further proceedings. We express no opinion regarding the additional elements of her negligence action, including breach, proximate causation, and damages, which
are issues usually decided by a jury. Belton v. Forest Preserve District of Cook County, 407 Ill. App. 3d 409, 414, 943 N.E.2d 221, 226 (2011).
¶ 23 Reversed and remanded.on..."

It was originally tossed and now reversed in appeals and final judgement is pending?

Oh, and she was hit in the back by a body that was flying fast enough to go over 100 feet onto that platform. In the back, by a back...

Reversed summary judgment against her and gave her the right to argue her case in court. Not a win, but undoing a loss.

One could argue that the railroad companies are aware that deaths occur from someone trying to run across tracks and getting hit by trains. It is reasonably forseeable that a person running across the tracks and getting hit by a train will die or be dismembered. Therefore, the railroad companies were negligent in not making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a person to run across the tracks. :lol:

You could argue that Papermate knows that people jam pens into their eyes and so is liable when someone does that, but it doesn't make it so ;)

The oncoming train had a clear signal and sounded, and so is not liable. If someone chooses to almost literally put blinders on (umbrella facing in the direction from which the train was coming) and then walk into traffic, whose fault is it?

I'm constantly amazed at the stupidity of people who I see jumping off curbs without looking because someone next to them did, step into traffic while concentrating on their Crackberry, or crossing 5 feet down from a red light that they don't think applies to them.

In NY and i am assuming in most states if a car hits a pedestrian the driver is prety much automatically at fault no matter how clueless/oblivious the pedestrian is.

I should think that it depends on the situation, just like here. Some idiot darts out between parked cars and right into the path of a car doing 30 MPH, and the driver isn't likely to be charged. In this case someone vacantly steps in front of a train that's going 70 MPH, and takes 2 miles to stop, and it isn't the engineer's fault. Even the law occasionally recognizes reality.

pedestrian situation can get murky. I know we had a guy try to run across the interstate and got smacked here. He was at fault.

There was also someone who tried to cross in a blind corner where I work now, they got hit and were at fault as well. It was because she was within 50 feet of like 3 crosswalks and they all said don't go and she went anyway.

From a legal standpoint the driver wont be charged but as far as ins goes they almost always do. Then again recently in NYC no one stops when they thump a pedestrain anyway, been a lot of fatal hit and runs up here.

Up here if the police found you to not be at fault in a pedestrian vs. vehicle collision, and the insurance company tried to jack your rates as if you were, there would be hell to pay. Vehicle vs. vehicle is different, because they use the Rules of Fault Determination, not the law, to determine the balance of fault. Those were brought in when we went to a no-fault insurance scheme.

Things may have changed here but when I was learning to drive they always told us hit a pedestrian and youre prety much at fault, even for that kid that darts out in front of you from between 2 parked cars. There may not be any legal issues from the police so long as you werent speeding, ran a red light etc.... but I think the instances trip listed are just such sheer stupidity they have to be at fault.

And that's what I'm saying; obvious stupidity shifts the blame. It's the case with the drunks who leap off the curb in front of me on St. Patrick's Day, to get to the Irish pub across the street and it's the case when someone wraps an umbrella around his face, then steps onto train tracks.

Yes, I know. Hence the :lol: at the end of my post. ;)

Well hit me with a train.

What? Are you TRYING to get your estate sued? :lmao:

I'm insured ;)

It is possible to get confused at train stations about oncoming trains. I used to take the train to work in Philly. I arrived at the deck and the bells/lights were going off. I stood there for a few mins with the crowd until it was obvious the train that was parked on our side of the tracks was setting off the signal. People began to cautiously cross the track but it was hard to see around the parked train. When my turn finally came I looked and then started to cross when a train horn sounded and I looked up the track again to see the approaching train coming at me at about 60mph. I had plenty of time to take the four steps needed to cross but it scared the shit out of me and the other passengers crossing. Those stations really do need crossing barriers to block the crosswalk.

The next time I arrived I almost missed my train cause I refused to cross when the parked trains were setting off the signal.