Dead Teen Sued for Losing Control of Flying Body Parts

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

Speaks volumes about what our society has become, doesn't it?

We had a thread on this awhile back. TTH came on and explained how the dead kid needed to be responsible for the damage done by his detached and flying body parts. Yup, this is what our society has come to.

It's a simple, degenerate mindset, really. Easily understood but no less vile. One that should surprise no one. In every society in civilization, periods of peace, power, and prosperity--like we've experienced--naturally give birth to this seething narcissism. It is this: "I am king, I am invincible, and I am the center of the universe; therefore, should I be harmed in any way, there is no conceivable way I could be responsible; therefore, someone else must compensate me."

As I have trumpeted many times before, the golden rule has been given to us for a reason. A society can only survive when the needs of others become equally important as our own needs. (For those of you ready to post 'kill the liberal democrat,' don't be idiots. I'm a republican and talking on a much higher plane than partisan squabbles.) When we learn to "do unto others as we would want them to do to us" then many things happen. The need for "racism" threads here goes away, the NCNS threads go away, and the ridiculous braggadocios goes away.

Know why? Because it's not about ME. It's about US.

Thanks to the OP. Good post.

All the best. (And I believe it can happen).

that seems like something that belongs on "1000 ways to die" tv show!

The kid was 18. Just how big of an "estate" is he going to have?
If he was like mine, the entire estate would consist of the $5 bill in his pocket.

Th kid ran out in front of a train. That's a pretty dangerous act. As good a definition of negligence as you can get. And when you do that, you should be responsible for the foreseeable consequences of that negligence. One of the obvious consequences is that debris from that collision is going to fly everywhere. That fact that the piece of debris in question is a body part is sad, but nonetheless, entirely within the range of predictable hazards.

And it's the kid's insurance policy that would pay the damages, just as it would be your liability insurance policy that would pay if you were in an accident that was your fault. And it's pretty damned hard to argue that pulling out in front of a train wasn't the cause of the accident and the by-stander's injuries.

We had a thread on this awhile back. TTH came on and explained how the dead kid needed to be responsible for the damage done by his detached and flying body parts. Yup, this is what our society has come to. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Substitute some words that reduce the shock and awe and see where you are.

Insurers pay several different trade associations to WHINE on their behalf about all sorts of claims. It's all part of their campaign to cast aspersions on policyholders who buy insurance when they decide to turn in claims covered by their policies. The term "Claims Conscious" is an example of name-calling and labeling that insurers use to try to make policyholders and others feel sorry for the company and condemn and vilify the claimant.

So a bumper flies off a similarly-damaged car and tears up your Lamborghini Diablo and you're not going to turn in a claim and your insurer isn't going to try to subrogate against the other insurer?

If a tree falls on your SUV and crushes it in a forest and there is no one around to hear it, is it still covered if you have full coverage auto insurance?

Thanks for the sanity, TTH!

Th kid ran out in front of a train. That's a pretty dangerous act. As good a definition of negligence as you can get. And when you do that, you should be responsible for the foreseeable consequences of that negligence. One of the obvious consequences is that debris from that collision is going to fly everywhere. That fact that the piece of debris in question is a body part is sad, but nonetheless, entirely within the range of predictable hazards.

And it's the kid's insurance policy that would pay the damages, just as it would be your liability insurance policy that would pay if you were in an accident that was your fault. And it's pretty damned hard to argue that pulling out in front of a train wasn't the cause of the accident and the by-stander's injuries. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

That's my question..."what insurance policy". He wasn't in a car, he was on foot, so the auto insurance is out. If he didn't have a life insurance policy what other insurance is there to go after? Can the injured party sue the parents? He was an adult, 18. I'm curious on this one.

If he lived at home with parents who had homeowners insurance there could be coverage or if he had his own homeowner policy or umbrella.

If he lived at home with parents who had homeowners insurance there could be coverage or if he had his own homeowner policy or umbrella. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Maybe. Depends on the policy, I suspect. Different State's homeowner's policies probably cover different things. And many States have now gone away from standardized coverages in homeowners' lines.

Frankly, I'm surprised that any body part escaped the collision if it was a pedestrian/train collision. I've seen the aftermath of a few of those through photographs and the body is usually either left between the rails of plastered on the front and sides of the locomotive.

Th kid ran out in front of a train. That's a pretty dangerous act. As good a definition of negligence as you can get. And when you do that, you should be responsible for the foreseeable consequences of that negligence. One of the obvious consequences is that debris from that collision is going to fly everywhere... Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Frankly, I'm surprised that any body part escaped the collision if it was a pedestrian/train collision. I've seen the aftermath of a few of those through photographs and the body is usually either left between the rails of plastered on the front and sides of the locomotive. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

If you ever find yourself arguing a similar case before a jury, I might suggest that you refrain from making a pair of such obviously contradictory statements.

Otherwise, the probability that the trial will not go very well for you is fairly high!

First statement was assuming that he ran out in front of the train in a vehicle. Then I was told that the case allegedly involved only a pedestrian. Things don't fly so much in those circumstances, at least in the three train/pedestrian cases I was involved in. But no contradictions at all. Just do very different fact scenarios.

First statement was assuming that he ran out in front of the train in a vehicle. Then I was told that the case allegedly involved only a pedestrian. Things don't fly so much in those circumstances, at least in the three train/pedestrian cases I was involved in. But no contradictions at all. Just do very different fact scenarios. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Huh??

In your first post, you stated that the kid "ran out in front of a train." There is no way you would have known that a train was involved if you hadn't read the article linked in the OP, since no one posting prior to you mentioned the presence of a train. And there's no way you could have read the article and concluded that another vehicle was involved. In fact, the article clearly stated that the kid "ran across" the tracks in an unfortunate attempt to catch a nearby train.

Do today's lawyers begin opining before acquainting themselves with the facts of a case?

Do today's lawyers begin opining before acquainting themselves with the facts of a case? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Duh! A lot of them never know the facts of their case. They just argue.