thump easy
Well-Known Member
accidents happend but ya just hospital bill n work comp but thats all i can see if a body hit me n broke my shit i would be pist if my plants died all six babies i could c y she might of sued she had a garden.....
Un-fucking-believable
- Thread starter Carne Seca
- Start date
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
The plaintiff would need to prove AMTRACK was negligent.
It is reasonable to assume that a train track will be carrying a train on it and care should be taken in crossing the tracks.
It is also reasonable to assume that a long distance train would run at high speeds.
Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that a woman standing on a platform would be perfectly safe unless some careless asshole got himself killed and in the process, injured her.
In this situation the train is the bat, the plaintiff is the window, and the dead man would be both the batter and the ball.
I don't hate you at all, hate is for the unloved. I just show you the hypocrisy of yourself and it irritates you to no end.
thump easy
Well-Known Member
i kinda hurt she sead i got a lil penis n i posted it i was told it was big n juicy lolz she sead it was tiny n undesirab le lolz
Filthy Phil
Well-Known Member
Yeah johnny, I get all that, but the same arguments , if valid for the dead guy, are just as valid against amtrack.The plaintiff would need to prove AMTRACK was negligent.
It is reasonable to assume that a train track will be carrying a train on it and care should be taken in crossing the tracks.
It is also reasonable to assume that a long distance train would run at high speeds.
Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that a woman standing on a platform would be perfectly safe unless some careless asshole got himself killed and in the process, injured her.
In this situation the train is the bat, the plaintiff is the window, and the dead man would be both the batter and the ball.
I would say the dead guy had reason to believe he wouldnt die crossing, but was simply wrong.
I would say its reasonable to assume the train wouldnt be approaching the platform at 70 mph.
It is then also reasonable to assume that the woman would be safe.
I dunno, maybe im partial to the dead guy. My cousin got hit by a train five years ago and died. My brother got splattered with his body parts. The whole family is still kinda fucked from it. If someone tried to sue us for neglegence it would really really piss me off
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
This is a trainwreck of a thread, and now some has hit me in the face. Oh what to do. cn
thump easy
Well-Known Member
im not mad thow everyone got an oppionion,
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Not valid at all unless the facts change.
Your argument is valid only if the train was exceeding some sort of speed limit. Based on that fact, AMTRACK would be negligent.
Trains are where they are supposed on the tracks to be and cannot stop on a dime. It is reasonable to assume that care must be taken when crossing railroad tracks.
The speeding train struck the body of the man who was negligent in crossing when he did. It is reasonable to assume that a speeding train would fling dismembered body parts at high velocity.
It is reasonable to assume that a person standing on a platform would be safe from a speeding train under normal conditions; meaning as long as no one would be so negligent as to place themselves in the path of said speeding train.
As such, his negligence resulted in harm to the woman on the platform. Had he not stepped in front of the speeding train, she would not have been hurt.
I am sorry about your cousin. He may not have been at fault when he was killed by a train, but this guy was.
Do you not see? That lady was fucked up by the actions of that man whether it was on purpose or an accident, so anything left behind in his estates SHOULD be legally hers to settle any medical debt and whatnot that was associated with his dumbass running in front of that train. They aren't going to put him or his "pieces" in jail, for fucks sake stop being so over the top.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
yeah that's it. you nailed it. Good job brownie.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
o.k. there spandy. calm down. it's only the internet.
this isn't a clear cut case of negligence.
the appeals judge ruled that case law dealing with flying body parts is sparse, and therefore it should proceed so some sort of case law comes into effect...
more bizzare than anything else, and semi redundant to point out a glitch in what scholars recognize is an imperfect law system in effect in the US... it's what we got so we just deal with it....
the appeals judge ruled that case law dealing with flying body parts is sparse, and therefore it should proceed so some sort of case law comes into effect...
more bizzare than anything else, and semi redundant to point out a glitch in what scholars recognize is an imperfect law system in effect in the US... it's what we got so we just deal with it....
fenderburn84
Well-Known Member
Redivider raises a good point. The outcome for this trial will be interesting. I really can't blame them for insufficient case law I wonder how many times that has happened?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
"habeas partem corporis" might apply ... cn
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
At the risk of having this post edited or deleted for daring to disagree with an all-powerful MODERATOR in the Politics section, I will nonetheless offer a rebuttal.
The appellate court felt the merits of the case were sufficient to reverse the lower court ruling.
The facts of the case meet the legal definition of negligence. Otherwise the appellate court would not allow the case to proceed.
Now whether a jury feels that a case of negligence has been made under the law is another matter entirely.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Smoke a lil trainwreck IMO.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
I guess people on here don't understand the concept of comprehensive damage.
A few years ago this guy high on E tried to kill his lover with a car. The guy failed and was so angry he drove down the street where I lived. He then backed up, drove forward at full speed from nearly a block away and totaled my parked car while I was watching tv in my apartment. He he hit my car so hard that my car hit another parked car and totaled it too because his car's wheels scraped the curb and bent the axle. The owner of the car my car struck wanted my driver's license and insurance. I told him to go fuck himself and his dispute was with the high one. He said it was my car, so I'm at fault. I told him he better have comprehensive insurance or be willing to sue the other guy. It got so heated, the cops nearly arrested both of us. He didn't have coprehensive and the high one fled the country. The insurance companies' all agreed since he had no comprehensive he could pound salt.
What this means is Amtrack is neglegent, not the dead dude, for allowing the possibility of comprehensive damage from flying body parts. In the end she'll have to sue Amtrack once the case reaches the highest appeals court. Also the woman will be libel for wrongful suit. The appeal which allowed her to win was in the wrong.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Apparently some people do not understand the concept of Proximate Cause.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1669
AMTRACK was not negligent under the law.
See Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (192Eight).
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
I think train passengers have a reasonable expectation not to be hit by flying body parts. This was a clear accident, it wasn't planned nor was it a suicide. Yeah it was stupid, but if stupidity were reason enough to sue, every single president, and politician would be sued into the streets.
Even if you consider the dead dude at fault, suing the family is ghoulish. The lady should be ashamed of herself. This is more of a bullshit thing than protesting dead soldiers' funerals by Westboro church members.