Etiam non princeps sed usque ad genua, Principis Pacis!
Posted on 12/29/2011 11:28:30 AM PST by CedarDave
Ruling in what it called a "tragically bizarre" case, an appeals court found that the estate of a man killed by a train while crossing the Edgebrook [Illinois] Metra station tracks can be held liable after a part of his body sent airborne by the collision struck and injured a bystander.
In 2008, Hiroyuki Joho, 18, was hurrying in pouring rain with an umbrella over his head, trying to catch an inbound Metra train due to arrive in about five minutes when he was struck by a southbound Amtrak train traveling more than 70 mph.
A large portion of his body was thrown about 100 feet on to the southbound platform, where it struck Gayane Zokhrabov, then 58, who was waiting to catch the 8:17 a.m. train to work. 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.
A state appeals court, after noting that the case law involving "flying bodies" is sparse, has disagreed, ruling that "it was reasonably foreseeable" that the high-speed train would kill Joho and fling his body down the tracks toward a platform where people were waiting.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Have we heard from any of the candidates their position on tort reform?
I understand she is suing for an arm and a leg.
Hey Now!....tip your waitresses people...I’ll be here all week.
Why would his family be liable? This makes no sense.
Cases like this should be thrown out of court. You see the train coming, you see lights flashing. The fact that he had an umbrella is a distraction. He tried to beat the train and lost.
Apparently young Mr. Joho should have been able to anticipate that if he were to accidently be hit by an oncoming train as a result of poor judgement on his part, that flying body-parts (his) would be dangerous and might hit and injure innocent bystanders.
I think that’s it.
intentional grounding, loss of down and 15 yard penalty.
I imagine its the same as driving too fast for conditions on an icy road, lose control and crash into another car. You are responsible for the injuries you cause, even though you may have been killed in the crash, and your estate can be sued for damages.
His family isn’t liable, his estate is. He was grossly negligent and an innocent person was injured as a result of his negligence. That person has a claim against his estate.
It’s Illinois, so now he can vote democrat in 3 different places at once.
It’s his estate, not his family that is responsible; a subtle difference in the case of an 18 year-old perhaps. Sad all around though
“Why would his family be liable? This makes no sense.”
Sorry, but if you do something stupid, killing yourself and a family member of mine, I’m going after your estate.
What would Mrs. Paslgraff say??
If he hadn’t already lost his ass to the train, he sure as hell lost it in court. /:8^)
I’ve got a million of them. BAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
ED
Anything to get ahead...
Etiam non princeps sed usque ad genua, Principis Pacis!
So now standing by the wayside minding your own business is “doing something stupid?”
In ten years I expect my share of his damaged umbrella.
His family would not be liable, his estate would be. It was his negligence just before he was gathered to his people that was the cause of the lady’s injuries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.