This story crossed my computer from a Facebook friend. Of course the focal point is you don’t try to beat a train or run in front of one, but this takes it to another level!!
In a way I can agree with her claim, it wasn’t her fault, the kid clearly did something really stupid, got tagged but she’s the one now with both physical and psychological damage that goes beyond the mere hospital bills will likely require years of psycho-therapy to resolve. I know I would…So the family of the teen can become liable for the damage he did. Its a highly unusual case but not unreasonable when you put yourself in her shoes.
Victor’s analysis is sharply consistent with liability awards.
No matter the means, her condition was absolutely determined by the accident. There is no claim for intent, simply a claim for outcome. Insurance company payoffs may not meet the needs of the plaintiff, therefore the suit to meet the costs of rehab and emotional damages.
Yeah, if she’s only suing to recover her costs, it’s perfectly reasonable.
If she were just trying to cash in for a megabuck payoff, that would be different.
I doubt if that kid has an estate worth megabucks.
I agree with the author - s–t happens, it was her bad luck to be standing in that spot when the kid got torn apart. I know what you’re going to say - if I were to get hit and injured by a car driven by a drunk who gets killed would I expect compensation from his insurance company?, yes, the out come of that behavior is predicable, but a kid trying to beat a train? , come on, the two don’t equate.
What has happened to taking responsibility for yourself - why is everything that happens someone else’s fault? We seem to have become so litigious that there’s no room for common sense any longer.
I agree with walter’s philosophy, taking responsibility for yourself, but I think it’s mis-applied here.
If the kid had recklessly thrown a rock across the track, I think everyone may agree that he’d be responsible for the damage he caused, perhaps limited by how much money he had or by some sort of fault of the alleged victim.
Now, the claim, to be evaluated by a jury of ordinary folk, is that instead of a rock, the kid threw his body, recklessly, across the track and caused some allegedly severe damage. Also killed himself, which is tragic. So, the question is, do we LET THE JURY even consider whether the kid was reckless, caused harm, and has a (admittedly posthumous) responsibility, or do we say, “oh gee, he’s dead, sorry lady, you do not get a right to hear your claim heard.”
I have no idea whether, in fact, the claim is frivolous or serious. But weird creepy stuff does happen. The problem, I think, is that it takes too long and too much money to sort the frivolous from the genuine, not that it’s possible to assert a claim that lotsa folks think looks weird at first.