Woman Hit By Teen’s Flying Body Parts Sues Teen’s Family

[johnleeknoefler]

Originally Posted by Flaka

Bad enough the mother lost her child to such a tragedy. Then this CUNT comes and pulls this bullshit.

People will sue for any fucking thing. PATHETIC

It's called tort law. Look it up. If your child does something stupid you can get sued. The courts decided in favor of the injured woman. Tough luck you had a stupid child who stands in front of the train waiting for it to stop. All trains pass through the station but not all trains stop. Even as a child I saw the tracks and trains and had great fear wondering what would happen to a person on the tracks. I realized that a train doesn't stop quickly and there would be no salvation for me if I got in front of a train. As a small child we rode the train accross the country. I was fearful and realized this was way bigger and more dangerous than a car.

[daughterofthenight]

not saying i don't understand that she has the legal right. i'm saying that she and the law are stupid.

sometimes shit just happens. people should deal with it. not look for the closest set of pockets.

[johnleeknoefler]

Originally Posted by daughterothenight

not saying i don't understand that she has the legal right. i'm saying that she and the law are stupid.

sometimes shit just happens. people should deal with it. not look for the closest set of pockets.

If she is exercising her legal rights and the courts agree then who are you to rewrite the laws? Perhaps you should stand as god over all and decide what laws are stupid and which ones are good? Tort laws have been well established for centuries. You want to rewrite them.... Good luck. See how far you get. See how many people agree that parents are not responsible for the stupid actions of their children.
You are responsible for your animals actions. You own them, you feed them and if they get loose you pay the price for any damage. Same for your retarded children. If they jump off a bridge and injure people passing below you must pay the price if sued. Should the highway department pay a lawsuit because it did not fence off the bridge and post signs saying you could hurt someone if you jump? Should the family of the deceased sue the train service because their son was so stupid he stood on the tracks to await his train? If the woman could of sued the train service she would have to prove that it was unreasonable to assume that anyone could know that a train traveling at 200 miles per hour would not stop. She would have had to prove that it is not common knowledge that you should not stand on a track. She can't prove that because it's not true. But the family did have a duty to teach their son some common sense. And even at the very least there are again the tort laws. If your son goes out and tosses a rock through a window for kicks you must pay the price. If he crashes his car and has no insurance YOU would have to stand for the damages or be sued. That is why children have so few rights. They are not able to make good decisions and so must be admonished, taught, controlled and disciplined by parents until they can figure it out on their own. And the parents are the responsible party. Did you know that if you sell a car to a minor on payments and they reneg on the payments and you are not able to take back the car for some reason you will lose it? You can not sue a minor. Therefore you MUST sue the parents. A minor has no right to make contracts. That's why they must have agents or parents make contracts for them. That is why a parent must sign for everything for their children. Get a clue. Go read up at the law library on the rights of minors and tort law. Then if you still think the law is stupid write your own and introduce it with petitions. See how many fools vote on such a stupid law. The woman won her case based on tort law.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by SeaGrave

I believe the injured person deserves compensation, but not from the boy's family. I'd say the train company is to blame.

The kid was a fucking tard, open ya eyes dickhead it is not hard.

[kellyhound]

Greedy bitch. hope she got hit by a truck.

[Tyberius]

I swear I'd shoot that bitch :D

[Brometheus]

i wish there were pics.. of the bitch that sued.. in my mind shes a fat white bitch.. the elementary school fat teacher bitch type. fuck her

[daughterofthenight]

Originally Posted by johnleeknoefler

If she is exercising her legal rights and the courts agree then who are you to rewrite the laws? Perhaps you should stand as god over all and decide what laws are stupid and which ones are good? Tort laws have been well established for centuries. You want to rewrite them.... Good luck. See how far you get. See how many people agree that parents are not responsible for the stupid actions of their children.
You are responsible for your animals actions. You own them, you feed them and if they get loose you pay the price for any damage. Same for your retarded children. If they jump off a bridge and injure people passing below you must pay the price if sued. Should the highway department pay a lawsuit because it did not fence off the bridge and post signs saying you could hurt someone if you jump? Should the family of the deceased sue the train service because their son was so stupid he stood on the tracks to await his train? If the woman could of sued the train service she would have to prove that it was unreasonable to assume that anyone could know that a train traveling at 200 miles per hour would not stop. She would have had to prove that it is not common knowledge that you should not stand on a track. She can't prove that because it's not true. But the family did have a duty to teach their son some common sense. And even at the very least there are again the tort laws. If your son goes out and tosses a rock through a window for kicks you must pay the price. If he crashes his car and has no insurance YOU would have to stand for the damages or be sued. That is why children have so few rights. They are not able to make good decisions and so must be admonished, taught, controlled and disciplined by parents until they can figure it out on their own. And the parents are the responsible party. Did you know that if you sell a car to a minor on payments and they reneg on the payments and you are not able to take back the car for some reason you will lose it? You can not sue a minor. Therefore you MUST sue the parents. A minor has no right to make contracts. That's why they must have agents or parents make contracts for them. That is why a parent must sign for everything for their children. Get a clue. Go read up at the law library on the rights of minors and tort law. Then if you still think the law is stupid write your own and introduce it with petitions. See how many fools vote on such a stupid law. The woman won her case based on tort law.

did i not already say that i understood she had the legal right to sue? i still think that she is a rude bitch. it was an ACCIDENT. the kid may have been stupid, but he did not walk in front of the train on purpose. if he had purposely walked in front of the train, then perhaps i could understand her decision to sue. i would however, still think her a bitch for compounding the parent's emotional pain.

no one MUST sue anyone. i've never sued anyone. i'm sure i could have a few times. i'm just not a litigious person.

and btw, i don't remember, where does it say i have to be God to hold a differing opinion?

[johnleeknoefler]

Originally Posted by daughterothenight

did i not already say that i understood she had the legal right to sue? i still think that she is a rude bitch. it was an ACCIDENT. the kid may have been stupid, but he did not walk in front of the train on purpose. if he had purposely walked in front of the train, then perhaps i could understand her decision to sue. i would however, still think her a bitch for compounding the parent's emotional pain.

no one MUST sue anyone. i've never sued anyone. i'm sure i could have a few times. i'm just not a litigious person.

and btw, i don't remember, where does it say i have to be God to hold a differing opinion?

Maybe she is a single person with no health insurance and no one to depend on. Maybe now she can't go to work being all busted up. So where is the money going to come from? It's tort law. And it doesn't matter what the kids intention was. It was a stupid ignorant act. If you let your dog out and it causes a car accident and you are all sad over your dog getting run over maybe it would upset you if those your dog caused to crash sued you. They have a right. If you want to condemn people for exercising their legal rights then I suggest you are a loudmouthed bully who meddles in other peoples affairs and refuses to mind your own business. If it's her legal right to seek redress through the courts and the courts agreed with her then you are placing your opinion above the judges and thousands of years of legal precedent. Good thing you are not a judge.

[daughterofthenight]

because it IS my responsibility to keep my dog locked up, i would agree on that count. i would totally be sad about my dog, but i would be more worried about the humans who crashed and got hurt. i'm one of those types of people who has a first aid kit in my pack, my truck, my house; so i'd probably be attending to them and calling 911. of course, i DO keep my dog locked up, so this is an unlikely scenario.

since we are both expressing opinions, i suppose we are both loud mouth bullies. of course i don't think of myself as that. i just think of myself as a person with an opinion. grateful to still live in a country where i'm allowed to own them. meddling with her life? from an obscure website on the internet? i don't think so. and i have no intention of being a judge. raising four children through to adulthood was enough stress. you seem a little stressed John, how's it going?