Dead guy gets sued over his flying body parts

[bosk1]

I just like to go out on a limb every now and then.

[Dr. DTVT]

Where's LeTrains to weigh in on this? 

7String made a great point that I was going to make, so I'll just quote him:

Yeah, this is like if someone gets into a car wreck for say texting and driving and the driver dies but injures a pedestrian in the process.  That stupid move got the driver killed, but also injured a pedestrian so that pedestrian could sue the dead driver.  It's the same idea.  Just because the person died does not make them not responsible for their actions while alive.

Regardless of his intentions, his action directly led to the harm of another person.  If he has nothing, so be it.  But you might as well as try to hit up the responsible party/parties for medical bills and lost wages.

[Jamesman42]

I just like to go out on a limb every now and then.

I'd give an arm and a leg if you stop making puns like that.

[MykeHavoc]

5 days in and we've already got a candidate for best news article of the year.

[Nekov]

Yeah, this is like if someone gets into a car wreck for say texting and driving and the driver dies but injures a pedestrian in the process.  That stupid move got the driver killed, but also injured a pedestrian so that pedestrian could sue the dead driver.  It's the same idea.  Just because the person died does not make them not responsible for their actions while alive.

I thought about this and as I said before, I understand the logic behind it but I think the law also takes ethics and moral. At least in my point of view, someone driving a motorized vehicle has a great responsability because it is very easy to injure or kill someone with it. I think this case is very different because he was reckless but he was running trying to catch a train and I would understand for example if the guy had tripped the lady while doing it and she was injured by that. But in this case he got run over by a train (because he was reckless) and his flying bosy ended up hitting the old lady. I think there should be a difference.

[MetalManiac666]

Unsurprisingly, this was on Gawker a few days ago.

[King Postwhore]

Well, yeah, but that's no reason to fall to pieces.

bosk, keep it together man!!

[bosk1]

Sorry.  I just feel like I've been through a meat grinder lately.

[7StringedBeast]

Yeah, this is like if someone gets into a car wreck for say texting and driving and the driver dies but injures a pedestrian in the process.  That stupid move got the driver killed, but also injured a pedestrian so that pedestrian could sue the dead driver.  It's the same idea.  Just because the person died does not make them not responsible for their actions while alive.

I thought about this and as I said before, I understand the logic behind it but I think the law also takes ethics and moral. At least in my point of view, someone driving a motorized vehicle has a great responsability because it is very easy to injure or kill someone with it. I think this case is very different because he was reckless but he was running trying to catch a train and I would understand for example if the guy had tripped the lady while doing it and she was injured by that. But in this case he got run over by a train (because he was reckless) and his flying bosy ended up hitting the old lady. I think there should be a difference.

Well he was running across train tracks, which I don't think is legal while a train is coming.  It's probably not legal to walk on train tracks ever, but I'm not really sure on that.  Either way, he was reckless and was doing something he should not have been doing and as a result a woman was injured.  As far as him dying, that plays no part in the lawsuit aspect of this.

[glaurung]

Sounds like this could up costing the guy's parents an arm and a leg.

[7StringedBeast]

Well you know they will throw their whole self into defending this either way. 

[Nekov]

Yeah, this is like if someone gets into a car wreck for say texting and driving and the driver dies but injures a pedestrian in the process.  That stupid move got the driver killed, but also injured a pedestrian so that pedestrian could sue the dead driver.  It's the same idea.  Just because the person died does not make them not responsible for their actions while alive.

I thought about this and as I said before, I understand the logic behind it but I think the law also takes ethics and moral. At least in my point of view, someone driving a motorized vehicle has a great responsability because it is very easy to injure or kill someone with it. I think this case is very different because he was reckless but he was running trying to catch a train and I would understand for example if the guy had tripped the lady while doing it and she was injured by that. But in this case he got run over by a train (because he was reckless) and his flying bosy ended up hitting the old lady. I think there should be a difference.

Well he was running across train tracks, which I don't think is legal while a train is coming.  It's probably not legal to walk on train tracks ever, but I'm not really sure on that.  Either way, he was reckless and was doing something he should not have been doing and as a result a woman was injured.  As far as him dying, that plays no part in the lawsuit aspect of this.

The article doesn't say that he was running on the tracks. For what I take he was crossing the tracks trying to get to the train coming the other way and didn't bother to look if another train was also coming. It was reckless but I don't think it was irresponsible.

[Jaffa]

The article doesn't say that he was running on the tracks.

The 18-year-old almost-passenger ran in front of a train

[7StringedBeast]

Yeah, this is like if someone gets into a car wreck for say texting and driving and the driver dies but injures a pedestrian in the process.  That stupid move got the driver killed, but also injured a pedestrian so that pedestrian could sue the dead driver.  It's the same idea.  Just because the person died does not make them not responsible for their actions while alive.

I thought about this and as I said before, I understand the logic behind it but I think the law also takes ethics and moral. At least in my point of view, someone driving a motorized vehicle has a great responsability because it is very easy to injure or kill someone with it. I think this case is very different because he was reckless but he was running trying to catch a train and I would understand for example if the guy had tripped the lady while doing it and she was injured by that. But in this case he got run over by a train (because he was reckless) and his flying bosy ended up hitting the old lady. I think there should be a difference.

Well he was running across train tracks, which I don't think is legal while a train is coming.  It's probably not legal to walk on train tracks ever, but I'm not really sure on that.  Either way, he was reckless and was doing something he should not have been doing and as a result a woman was injured.  As far as him dying, that plays no part in the lawsuit aspect of this.

The article doesn't say that he was running on the tracks. For what I take he was crossing the tracks trying to get to the train coming the other way and didn't bother to look if another train was also coming. It was reckless but I don't think it was irresponsible.

Oh really?  It wasn't irresponsible to run in front of an oncoming train?  He's dead.  His actions caused him to be dead.  That's as irresponsible as it gets.

[Orbert]

It was reckless but I don't think it was irresponsible.

I guess I'm having trouble seeing the difference here.

[TioJorge]

It was reckless but I don't think it was irresponsible.

I guess I'm having trouble seeing the difference here.

That's because there isn't. In fact, under most definitions, reckless IS apart of the definition of irresponsible.

But I'm sure you knew that.

This thread has just lost its head completely. (This ends the entire point in which I came into this thread. Thank you. I've never ever used a pun. It felt good)

[snapple]

Guys, the jokes are tasteless. Imagine how torn up the family is?

[GuineaPig]

The article doesn't say that he was running on the tracks.

The 18-year-old almost-passenger ran in front of a train

Running along tracks ≠ running in front of a train.

[Jaffa]

The article doesn't say that he was running on the tracks.

The 18-year-old almost-passenger ran in front of a train

Running along tracks ≠ running in front of a train.

As far as I can see, no one mentioned running ALONG tracks.  I was only clarifying that he did run ON the tracks - which he obviously did.  It'd be difficult to run in front of a train without running on the tracks.

[bss4life15]

Guys, the jokes are tasteless. Imagine how torn up the family is?

Not as torn up as him.

[Super Dude]

Shouldn't Amtrak be paying? They killed the kid, after all.

[blackngold29]

Shouldn't Amtrak be paying? They killed the kid, after all.

Technically not, but in what world are they thinking it's a good idea to make people walk across a train track to get to another?


What happens to the belongings on an 18 year old, who I'll assume didn't have a will? His parents inherit his stuff? Just pay for the medical bills and nothing more. If the lady wants more than that she's a jerk.

[ResultsMayVary]

Are you fucking serious? This is incredibly stupid.

[Implode]

Guys, the jokes are tasteless. Imagine how torn up the family is?

Not as torn up as him.

This is simultaneously the worst and best post.

[Sigz]

Shouldn't Amtrak be paying? They killed the kid, after all.

Technically not, but in what world are they thinking it's a good idea to make people walk across a train track to get to another?

That's not entirely uncommon (nor is specific to Amtrak), especially at smaller stations. The local metro station here just has a crosswalk across the tracks if you need to get to the one going the other direction.

[El Barto]

Shouldn't Amtrak be paying? They killed the kid, after all.

Technically not, but in what world are they thinking it's a good idea to make people walk across a train track to get to another?

That's not entirely uncommon (nor is specific to Amtrak), especially at smaller stations. The local metro station here just has a crosswalk across the tracks if you need to get to the one going the other direction.

But do trains pass through at 70mph?

[Implode]

Yes. Or...well in my experience, I haven't been at a station where trains go 70mph, but commuter/freight trains will pass at full speed.

[snapple]

Guys, the jokes are tasteless. Imagine how torn up the family is?

Not as torn up as him.

This is simultaneously the worst and best post.

That's what I meant by torn up in the first place.

[GuineaPig]

Shouldn't Amtrak be paying? They killed the kid, after all.

Technically not, but in what world are they thinking it's a good idea to make people walk across a train track to get to another?

That's not entirely uncommon (nor is specific to Amtrak), especially at smaller stations. The local metro station here just has a crosswalk across the tracks if you need to get to the one going the other direction.

But do trains pass through at 70mph?

It doesn't say whether there was any protection at the crossing, but regulations (that are common throughout the rest of the world) allow speeds of 100-125 mph through level crossings.

[lonestar]

Shouldn't Amtrak be paying? They killed the kid, after all.

Technically not, but in what world are they thinking it's a good idea to make people walk across a train track to get to another?

That's not entirely uncommon (nor is specific to Amtrak), especially at smaller stations. The local metro station here just has a crosswalk across the tracks if you need to get to the one going the other direction.

But do trains pass through at 70mph?

It doesn't say whether there was any protection at the crossing, but regulations (that are common throughout the rest of the world) allow speeds of 100-125 mph through level crossings.

They have level tracks at most of the Amtrack stations here, just most of us who are not suicidal have the presence of mind not to go in front of a multi-ton train moving at high speed.

[Orbert]

If there are multiple tracks, it's pretty much a given that you'll have to cross at least one track to get to the others.  The only way to avoid that is to have bridges going over or tunnels under them or something, which just isn't practical in smaller stations.  Or most larger ones, for that matter.

Every train station I've seen has signs and sometimes red flashing lights where you cross one track to get to the other(s).  If a train was coming through there at speed, anybody paying any attention at all knew about it.  If this guy still managed to run in front of it, he either thought he could beat it, or really didn't know it was coming, but for the second case to be true, he simply was being completely ignorant of his surroundings, and I'm sorry but that's his own damned fault.  We haven't heard anything about malfunctioning warning lights or anything.

[zerogravityfat]

only in jamaica

[El Barto]

Most of my train experience was in Europe, but I don't recall a single level grade crossing over there.  Even the smallest stations had tunnels to get you to the platforms. 

[GuineaPig]

Most of my train experience was in Europe, but I don't recall a single level grade crossing over there.  Even the smallest stations had tunnels to get you to the platforms.

Depends.  On main lines, they would be pretty rare, simply because of the volume of traffic.  On regional or branch lines, pedestrian level crossings are quit common.  Frequently it's because it's cheaper to build a platform in the middle of a double-tracked line, rather than two platforms.  Also because for low-traffic stations separating pedestrian flow would not be cost-effective.

[TioJorge]

Hey, can you guys list each and every single station on Earth and categorize them by which ones have crossings and which ones have underpasses and/or bridges? I wanna know

really






really






bad.