Who should pay this lady compensation?
Discussion
Or should she even be compensated at all? Making a claim against the dead man's estate like this seems a pretty low thing to do. I really hope this level of 'compensation culture' never reaches our shores.
Article said:
Man killed by train can be sued over bystander's injuries
An appeals court rules that Hiroyuki Joho, who was killed at a Chicago Metra station, can be held responsible after a portion of his body struck a woman on the platform.
Reporting from Chicago—
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.
Several witnesses said he was smiling as the train hit him.
A large portion of his body flew about 100 feet onto the southbound platform, where it struck Gayane Zokhrabov, then 58. She was knocked to the ground, her leg and wrist broken and her shoulder injured.
A Cook County judge dismissed Zokhrabov's lawsuit against Joho's estate, finding that Joho could not have anticipated Zokhrabov's injuries.
But the appellate court disagreed. After noting that the case law involving "flying bodies" is sparse, it ruled that "it was reasonably foreseeable" that the high-speed train would kill Joho and fling his body toward a platform where people were waiting.
Leslie Rosen, who handled Zokhrabov's appeal, said although the circumstances were "very peculiar and gory and creepy," it was a straightforward negligence case, no different than if a train passenger had been injured after the engineer hit the brakes.
"If you do something as stupid as this guy did, you have to be responsible for what comes from it," she said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-train-death-lawsuit-20111229,0,1119897.storyAn appeals court rules that Hiroyuki Joho, who was killed at a Chicago Metra station, can be held responsible after a portion of his body struck a woman on the platform.
Reporting from Chicago—
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.
Several witnesses said he was smiling as the train hit him.
A large portion of his body flew about 100 feet onto the southbound platform, where it struck Gayane Zokhrabov, then 58. She was knocked to the ground, her leg and wrist broken and her shoulder injured.
A Cook County judge dismissed Zokhrabov's lawsuit against Joho's estate, finding that Joho could not have anticipated Zokhrabov's injuries.
But the appellate court disagreed. After noting that the case law involving "flying bodies" is sparse, it ruled that "it was reasonably foreseeable" that the high-speed train would kill Joho and fling his body toward a platform where people were waiting.
Leslie Rosen, who handled Zokhrabov's appeal, said although the circumstances were "very peculiar and gory and creepy," it was a straightforward negligence case, no different than if a train passenger had been injured after the engineer hit the brakes.
"If you do something as stupid as this guy did, you have to be responsible for what comes from it," she said.
I never know what to make of things like this.
Sure it's a bit creepy and seems immoral, but reverse the situation, you have a broken leg, you're off work for X months, I'm guessing the US may not have the same level of sick pay as the UK so you might end up significantly out of pocket.
Yes it's tasteless but I can just about get my head around the reasons for it - assuming she's suing for what it's costing her and not for punitive damages or something stupid.
Sure it's a bit creepy and seems immoral, but reverse the situation, you have a broken leg, you're off work for X months, I'm guessing the US may not have the same level of sick pay as the UK so you might end up significantly out of pocket.
Yes it's tasteless but I can just about get my head around the reasons for it - assuming she's suing for what it's costing her and not for punitive damages or something stupid.
If you suffer a loss it's perfectly reasonable to be compensated for it, the only time 'compensation culture' goes wrong is when the compensation is out of proportion to the loss.
In this case if I was stood there doing no harm to anyone and something hit me causing me broken bones I'd want compensating.
In this case if I was stood there doing no harm to anyone and something hit me causing me broken bones I'd want compensating.
It seems an odd one but perfectly fair.
She was injured by his reckless actions and he is responsible for her injuries. If she has suffered financial loss as a result she should be allowed to seek damages.
Put in a different context if a car hit you and it was a result of the driver acting recklessly, even of that person died you would be right to make a claim for any losses.
She is suing him and not the bereaved.
One snippet that does raise a question is that the article mentions her age as 58 'at the time' so what length of time has passed? If the estate has already been processed, divided and no longer exists then it's tough titty though.
She was injured by his reckless actions and he is responsible for her injuries. If she has suffered financial loss as a result she should be allowed to seek damages.
Put in a different context if a car hit you and it was a result of the driver acting recklessly, even of that person died you would be right to make a claim for any losses.
She is suing him and not the bereaved.
One snippet that does raise a question is that the article mentions her age as 58 'at the time' so what length of time has passed? If the estate has already been processed, divided and no longer exists then it's tough titty though.
Turtle head said:
MX7 said:
DonkeyApple said:
It seems an odd one but perfectly fair.
Agree, but what happens when there's a train delayed by a suicide, and hundreds of people lose out financially?We really do need some sort of "s
t happens" law
GeraldSmith said:
deeen said:
Deliberate? Reads like an accident to me
Well he was deliberately on the tracks which, I assume, he was not meant to be. Whether he meant to be hit by a train is, I would imagine, not known.Secondly, people who use trains as a short cut to meet St Peter usually stand still and let it happen or jump in front of the things - the article doesn't go into enough detail to be able to say with any certainty, but it sounds like an accident to me.
Whether or not it was an accident or a suicide, in neither case is the soon-to-be dear departed likely to get out his slide rule and work out where various bits of his body are likely to end up in the aftermath.
Any insurance company who's head is not in the clouds should be treating this as an Act of God or, to use the vernacular mentioned earlier, a s
t happens scenario. Tough perhaps on the woman concerned, but here's a novel thought - when something unpleasant happens to you, it isn't necessarily somebody else's fault
Get over it
If the impact of the train had caused it to derail, passengers on the train who were consequently injured would be entitled to claim against him: that sort of injury is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of walking in front of a train.
If a bystander was operating heavy machinery and was distracted by the sound of the impact, causing him to be injured by the machinery he was operating, I'd think that is less reasonably foreseeable.
If someone was listening to the radio and was distracted by a report of the incident, and fell downstairs injuring themselves, that is no less or more reasonably foreseeable than the plant operator, but is too remote from the incident to be recovered from the defendant.
On that scale, I'd put this incidence somewhere between the first and second examples, right at the outer limits of what is reasonably foreseeable.
If a bystander was operating heavy machinery and was distracted by the sound of the impact, causing him to be injured by the machinery he was operating, I'd think that is less reasonably foreseeable.
If someone was listening to the radio and was distracted by a report of the incident, and fell downstairs injuring themselves, that is no less or more reasonably foreseeable than the plant operator, but is too remote from the incident to be recovered from the defendant.
On that scale, I'd put this incidence somewhere between the first and second examples, right at the outer limits of what is reasonably foreseeable.
rs1952 said:
Tough perhaps on the woman concerned, but here's a novel thought - when something unpleasant happens to you, it isn't necessarily somebody else's fault
So taking that to its logical conclusion, you're walking along minding your own business, a car drives into you, a body flies into you, whatever, and you're unable to work for a period of time due to your injuries.You have no income so presumably can't pay the bills, maybe the rent, maybe the mortgage.
Would you sit back and simply "get over it"?
MX7 said:
what happens when there's a train delayed by a suicide, and hundreds of people lose out financially?
Nothing. Trains are delayed for all sorts of reasons. You can also get in a traffic jam for any reason or "no reason". Being late due to a late train requires compensation? Don't be daft!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff