E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA "gory and creepy" lawsuit over an injury caused by a flying body part can go forward in Chicago, an Illinois appeals court has ruled.
The tragic case stems from a 2008 morning commuter accident at the Edgebrook Metra station, the Chicago Tribune reported Thursday.
Hiroyuki Joho, 18, shielding himself from pouring rain with an umbrella over his head, was hurrying to catch an inbound Metra train when he was struck by an southbound Amtrak train going more than 70 mph, the Tribune said.
The impact sent a large portion of his body flying 100 feet into Gayane Zokhrabov, then 58, who was waiting on the southbound train platform, the Tribune said. Joho's body part knocked Zokhrabov to the floor, breaking her leg and wrist and injuring her shoulder.
Zokhrabov sued Joho's estate, but a Cook County judge ruled that Joho could not have anticipated her injuries, the Tribune said.
A state appeals court, however, disagreed, ruling that "it was reasonably forseeable" that the high-speed train would kill Joho and fling his body toward the people waiting on the platform.
Zokhrabov's lawyer, Leslie Rosen, told the Tribune that while the case was "very peculiar and gory and creepy," it was straightforward negligence on Joho's part.
Joho's mother, the Tribune said, sued Metra and Canadian Pacific Railway, claiming they were negligent by not announcing a Metra delay, which led to Joho's accident when he mistook which train was his.
The Tribune said Park's attorney Keith Davidson told the newspaper he is appealing to the Illinois Supreme Court a Cook County judge's ruling that the railroads had no duty to warn about such an "open and obvious danger" as a moving train.
The Tribune cited three other cases, including one settled for an undisclosed amount after a train struck a woman who was following her sister across the Edgebrook tracks two months after Joho's death.
In 1951, a postal worker successfully sued after being hit by the body of an elderly woman in Momence, Ill., who was struck by a train that was found to have been operating at an unsafe speed, the Tribune said.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
Everyone out for a buck. Gees, get a life.
Shakespeare was right 400 years ago when he said:
They are the ones who will get rich off of this. #%&! Bottom Feeding Scum Suckers!
Medical expenses aren't free,and it's kind of hard to work when you have a broken wrist and leg and a messed up shoulder.I can see why she would want to be compensated for it. It's kinda stupid to run in front of a freakin train.
Saraos I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the obvious here. The train company was not responsible for the accident. The deceased was. Therefore, the deceased is responsible for the injuries that result from the accident.
i think that she should at least get some restitution to cover the cost of medical bills and time lost for work. She will probably need psychotherapy to boot. Oh crap, at first i thought this suit was ludicrous but now that i think about it, i would be scarred for life. always looking over my shoulder or jumping at every sound. Just give her the money. the ACCIDENT messed her up for life.
Short of her actual loses she is entitled to nothing. Any costs not covered by medical insurance and any time at work not covered by paid time off nothing more. Since no one is claiming he committed suicide it's the railroad's insurance should cover those costs.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised to hear that trains roar through stations in excess of 70 mph, and that people are allowed to wander around on tracks used for that purpose. Are there any indicators to warn of approaching trains? Did the engineer sound the horn?
At what point is an individual responsible for noticing a TRAIN?
An acquaintance hit the MIDDLE of a train with his car. How can you do that? He had his dog with him in the car and afterwards, the dog would never ride with him again. Seriously. The dog would run when he picked up his car keys.
Obviously, the dog should have been driving.
Where the F*ck am I? A parallel universe in which people who get killed in an accident are liable for what happens after they are dead???
Leslie Rosen, are you serious?
No wonder people hate lawyers.
Saraos, you are people like you are what's wrong with this nation. All this idiot cares about is making a quick buck off of someone else's tragedy. It was an accident, meaning no one is at fault. This person didn't ask to be hit by a train and she was just unlucky enough to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. That's why we carry medical and disability insurance. If she wasn't bright enough to forsee that she might need these at some point in her life, then it's her own fault for being stupid. It is unconscionable to sue a person for getting killed. I hope she loses the case and then has a miserable life living with the guilt over trying to capitalize off of a tragedy. Karma is a, uhm, well, female dog if you get my drift
Have you seen the cost of Medical Care in the United States? Given our system of medical care - even if you have insurance, if you are really injured by the time you cover the deductibles, etc... you can be in a very deep whole.
Why should the injured person who was completely - not at fault - have to deal with the costs?
Let me guess, you also do not believe in Single Payer Health Care?
Again - given the type of health care we have in the United States and the way we finance health care - if you want to not go deep into debt for medical care when you have a serious injury and you were not at fault - you often have little choice but to sue.
OK If I cross the track here and the train hits me at X mph at point Y as I cross, my torso will travel in direction A and strike someone standing at point B. Ready. Aim. Cross! Got her!!! Torsos are weapons; outlaw them.
OK all you lawyers out there, answer this. If this guy was responsible and therefor liable for damages, how is he going to pay? He's 18 which makes him a legal adult and should shield his parents from any liability. Since he's 18, I really doubt his "estate" is worth anything even close to what the lady's medical bills were. So, where does the money come from?
Great point Todd....I've been wondering the same thing.
They'd take whatever assets he does have and put them against the medical bills. It's not like they can garnish future wages. In any event, unless this kid was a child actor or something, it's almost certain that whatever she can recover won't fully compensate her medical bills.
He didn't see the train she didn't see the body in the air nobody sees anything in Illinois, at least that is what the last 2 Governors claimed. Next thing you now someone will sue McDonalds for hot coffee ;-}
I think you could construct a legitimate argument that a person on a train platform has the responsibility to be watchful of trains (and I am not an attorney). Usually you would argue this so you are not hit by a train yourself, but I suppose you could extend the argument so that you are not hit by the train and your body parts don't fly through the air and injure someone!
I'm sure the injured person would like some of the settlement that the mother is receiving from their lawsuit against the railway in her suit.
I don't think the mother is getting anything. So far at least.
"The Tribune said Park's attorney Keith Davidson told the newspaper he is appealing to the Illinois Supreme Court a Cook County judge's ruling that the railroads had no duty to warn about such an "open and obvious danger" as a moving train."
Metra train stations will soon be obligated to post signs now stating "All passengers are responsible for damages caused by their flying body parts after death and/or dismemberment. Please be aware of your surroundings and courteous to others at your time of death."
I'm sure the lawsuit against Joho's estate is so the secondary victim can collect should there be anything from the railroad.
My question is, if a person has a duty to avoid moving trains (an open and obvious danger) do they also have a duty to avoid moving body parts which are (obviously) also very obvious and very dangerous.
@dirp101
What is obvious about flying body parts?
A train is a loud, multi-ton vehicle traveling along a fixed path.
Flying body parts are extremely rare, happen without warning, and fly in a random direction.
@Scubasteve58001
Allow me to add to your observation that if the afore mentioned body parts are instantly accelerated to the speed of the moving object, 70 mph, it would travel 100 ft. in .974025974025976 seconds. That doesn't give much time to duck, let alone time to recognize that you are in the direct line of fire. It might be enough time to realize that you're going down. "Man up, man down!!!"
I would guess the mom gets his Darwin Award to frame and hang on her wall. McDonalds has already been sued over hot coffee so that position has already been taken.
Since Joho was 18 and a legal adult, can the victim sue Joho's family? I thought once a child reaches the age of majority (18) the family of that 18 year old is no longer responsible or liable for the actions of that new adult. Any lawyers out there care to clarify that for me?
Todd, you are correct but I hope this helps:
1- Yes he is responsble - and responsible alone being 18.
2- Can his family be held liable? No. He was 18.
3- Can his own estate - meaning whatever he owned (that is in probate because of his death) be held and then auctioned off to pay for the injuries his accidental or suicidal death inflicted on others - yes
4- Is it likely he doesnt have much or anything - yes
i cannot belief that this suit is moving ahead. this ninny should get zip awarded. the family of the dead guy should sue her for adding emotinal distress to their grief. this is just unbelievable
So are YOU going to cover the out of pocket medical costs and lost wages for the injured person?
I thought not...
If 2 cars collide and nobody in the vehicles are seriously injured, but a bumper from one of the cars flies off and hits a bystander breaking their leg, wrist and injuring their shoulder, is the injured party deserving of medical costs and wages lost, I think so. Of course nobody carries liability insurance for this type of incident, but as another poster pointed out this was probably very traumatic for the real victim which was the injured person. Joho made the stupid mistake to cross the tracks at a point where you are not supposed to cross, he like ly heard the bells and saw his train slowly pulling in, unfortunately he didn't look the other way and due to his negligence caused the injuries of the Lady. Had Joho been wise this would not be a story.
ambulance chasing low life lawyers will love this moron judges decision.disbar the whole lot of them.next maybe they can sue the umberella maker because the poor dead person couldn't see through it....
This takes greed to a new level. How could somebody live with themselves, suing the estate of somebody who died so tragically. So she got hurt, she'll heal .Anything for a quick easy buck, get a job and get a life !
So let me get this straight:
1). An 18 year-old was killed by a train because it was late and he apparently stepped in front of it
2). The company operating the train was not at fault because he should have been aware that it was late and therefore should have known he could have been killed
3). The woman who was hurt by the " flying body parts" can sue his estate because he should have known that someone would/could have been hurt when the train tore his body apart
Do I have this right? Something is terribly wrong with this picture.
He wasn't killed because the train was late, he was killed because he failed to make sure a train wasn't coming before stepping on train tracks.
Do you think there is some guarantee of when train tracks will be occupied and when they won't?
I'm pretty sure most trains travelling at 70 mph are noisy and have a big light on the front of them. I imagine you should probably look both ways before crossing a railroad track, road, NASCAR oval, bike trail, etc. Just a thought.
Let me see if I get this straight.
1.) Flying body part Man through his own stupidity and negligence gets hit by a train going 70 mph.
2.) Flying body part Man get's launched 100 feet into a Woman waiting for a train causing her to suffer serious injuries.
Seems to me Flying body part Man is at fault and if he has the personal assets to cover the the medical bills and lost wages his personal estate should cover those expenses.
Gimme a break! Another sleazy lawyer trying to hit the lottery with a totally spurious case.
Hey MSNBC Staff reporters - when you summarize an article published some place else, please try to include the pertinent information.
This article states, "The Tribune said Park's attorney Keith Davidson..."
I had to go to the Chicago Tribune article to figure out just who "Park" was. The paragraph before that sentence should be rewritten to:
"Joho's mother, Jeung-Hee Park, sued Metra and Canadian Pacific Railway..."
That would help clarify things.
This is MSNBC, you have to lower your expections to almost nothing.
pjam, be careful what you say about MSNBC because their moderators will collapse, delete, and ban you if you talk ill of MSNBC or call someone a stupid dip@!$%#.
Trust me, I've been banned numerous times!
I can't believe she would sue the family of the dead young man. He didn't plan to commit suicide and hurt someone in the process, he had an accident. No planning involved. It's not his fault nor his family's fault. She is injured but alive, unlike the young man. She should write it off as bad luck rather than adding more emotional distress to this family.
I can remember my 8th grade health book saying there was no such thing as an accident, that there was always a cause. That stuck with me. In this case, this young man crosses railroad tracks without looking. Seems like a bad idea to me, kind of like looking both ways before you cross the street. So because of his foolishness (Darwin Award candidate?), he loses his life and his body part causes a significant injury to another person. She is injured sufficiently to require treatment and probably incurred a major expense, as well as a loss of income from not being able to work. The injured party sues the young man's estate, probably with the idea that if they are successful in their suit against the railroad, they will gain a share of it. If the estate can gain from his death, isn't the injured party entitled to a share?
You make a very good point - in real life there are really no "accidents" - there are consequences of actions. Sure these actions may not have been intentional but that does not remove those actions from being the cause of the consequence.
If you run across a freeway without looking and get hit by a car - that is not an "accident" - it is someone gambling that a car won't try to be in the same place at the same time that's all - same thing with a train - the guy could have stopped and looked but apparently CHOSE not to stop and look which means he walking across the tracks by his own choice and he was unlucky enough to try and occupy the same physical location as a train at the same time.
So this wasn't an accident, it was an intentional act by the guy to walk across the tracks without looking - just not intentional to get hit by a train.
stupidest thing I've ever heard
These days it seems everything bad that happens MUST be someone's fault. Nobody seems to realize that accidents happen and that's it's just plain bad luck. Sigh....
So if someone crashes into your car, you won't make them to pay for it because "accidents happen" ?
I certainly wouldn't expect a corpse to pay. Let alone family members that had nothing to do with the incident. I think they paid enough already.
It happened at the station. The station can pay for medical and time lost at work. Counseling if needed. It's time to put an end to multi million dollar suits and start paying what is fair.
Try replacing the scenario of poor Mr Park's flying body parts with flying car parts.
For the sake of argument, let's say he drove his car recklessly where it should not have been driven. That is, into the path of a moving train. Would not injuries incurred by the woman by being struck by flying car parts be grounds for compensation?
The owner of that car would, yes. However, in this case, the owner of the flying body parts is dead. Why go after innocent people to pay for this man's mistake?
If the at-fault owner of a negligently driven car dies in the wreck of that car, and the car causes severe injury to another, their estate is still subject to lawsuit. Happens all the time.
I think the word innocent could be exchanged for the word negligent. That is, if the courts decide Mr. Park was negligent for running into the path of the train.
Not a personal opinion of mine either way. Merely speculating how things may play out in the courts.
Ridiculous... "reasonably foreseeable"? That implies they could have both foreseen flying body parts happening and done something to prevent it. Law has become completely disconnected from reality!
Exactly. Somehow, in the last milliseconds of his unfortunately short life, he should have paused to consider the trajectory his corpse might take, the rate at which it might fly through the air, who might be injured by the impact, etc. Perhaps he should have written a sympathy card for his victim.
Seems pretty reasonable.
It's also reasonably forseeable that our "justice" system will keep getting it wrong as long as it continues to suffer from its acute case of cranio-rectal insertion.
Here is exactly what could have been done to prevent such an occurence. The decedent could have stayed off of the train tracks. It is common knowledge that moving trains obliterate objects within their path of travel, clearly marked by those parallel tracks. Stepping a few feet back from the tracks would have saved the man's life and prevented the woman's injuries. The decedent likely failed to use reasonable care when crossing said tracks. If the decedent did not use the same amount of care as most reasonably prudent people would, he was negligent. If he was negligent, that negligence caused the woman's injuries. Shouldn't people be held responsible when they act negligently?
What happens to an object hit by a train traveling at even moderately high speed? Are the results foreseeable? Most people would intuitively expect that such an object would be destroyed and that pieces of it would fly off in random directions. It follows that most people could also foresee that those pieces could impact anything in the immediately surrounding area causing damage. Just because the "pieces" happen to be body parts in this case does not make it any less foreseeable that they would cause the same damage as any other object in the same circumstances.
Amazing how this sue-happy country operates
If she had slipped and fallen in her own yard and broken a leg, wrist and shoulder, who would she have sued?
The 18 year old made a mistake and paid with his life. I'm fairly certain he did not intend to get killed much less dismembered. I'll also wager he did not anticipate that if he did die in such a manner that someone else would be injured by his body parts. I can't begin to imagine what part of this he could have foreseen. She is probably and understandably traumatized by this event. Instead of making this young man's parent's suffer even more, maybe she should just thank her lucky stars that she is alive, not brain damaged and can go on with her life. How much does she think she is going to get from the estate of an 18 year old? If there isn't enough of an estate to pay her and her lawyer, what is she going to do: Sue the parents?
This is tragic and people in intense emotional or physical pain will look to place blame and/or inflict pain on others. I'm with Saraos on this one. Joho should not have run blindly across, that was negligent. His negligence caused the accident and typically, the negligent party should be held responsible.
The mother is devastated because she lost her son and she's going after Metra and the railway for not announcing a delay. Yet Metra and the railway should not be held responsible for a man blindly running in front of a train. The woman on the receiving end of this horrible ordeal is hurt physically, traumatized emotionally, and will have medical expenses. It wasn't her fault, she was just standing there until the act of negligence occurred. She shouldn't have to pay because someone didn't take a moment to look both ways. She's not "going after" the mother who just lost her son, she's looking for the responsible party to pay and that responsible party is the son. She isn't on the receiving end of bad luck, she's on the receiving end of poor judgment.
Again, a tragic situation. I don't think he deserved it, I think it's sad that his head was so full of thoughts and obligations that he got lost in them to the point of not looking before he crossed. Many of us have been on "auto pilot" on numerous occasions when we should have been more aware. I most certainly have.
Once Obamacare goes fully into effect these types of lawsuits won't need to be filed since the government (really all of us taxpayers) will be picking up the medical tabs for all the people that get hit by flying body parts.
Is it possible for there to be comments on an article that don't turn into a political platform for some loud-mouth? Apparently not. What does Obama have to do with this? What does any politician have to do with this?
"Wah, Obama's responsible for everything that's wrong with America!" Economykiller, you might want to do your research, learn a bit about world and country financial and governmental legislation, and realize that what Obama is in the middle of right now was at LEAST fifty years' coming.
We started outsourcing in earnest in this country back in the 1960s, losing manufacturing plants, products and jobs while importing products at a ridiculous rate; groups like the American Legion filed resolutions against importing such "foreign goods" as far back as the early 1920s. Wall Street has been full of greedy bastards for over a century--you think 1929 meant anything to their "1%" not threatened by the stock market collapse? Banks and mortgage companies have scammed and deluded the American public since the 1970s, and like Wall Street, the U.S. government and the laws passed in relation to those institutions have been designed to make the government money while scamming the general public, with little or no concern for the average working individual and their future.
Oh, but things like the national health care debate--which has been put off for DECADES now, as Clinton was supposed to have it as a "done deal" under his administration--is all OBAMA'S FAULT... right. Learn your history. Educate yourself. And realize that as the "best" country in the world, we rank 37th in terms of health care! Newborn babies, the elderly, the mentally and physically disabled ALL stand a MUCH better chance of survival elsewhere, because America doesn't care about its weaker members.
I don't know that politics needs to enter into this, but the lady was just a victim of circumstance. It is really easy to run up a $10-$20,000 bill in emergency. It doesn't seem appropriate that someone in the wrong place at the wrong time should have to pay for this out of her pocket. It does seem cold to sue the dead guy, but then who really is at fault? Maybe in circumstance like this, there should be some "no fault" compensation. Maybe all of the insurance companies involved pick up some portion of the bill.
It's not clear just how much she is suing for, but her medical bills and maybe lost work time, seems like a reasonable compensation. It doesn't seem right to stick her with the expense just because she was unlucky. It could be some real money. It's easy to criticize her for suing when you aren't in her situation.
I do think that if you have a public health care system where everybody shares the costs, a big part of this becomes a non issue and no lawyers or insurance companies make some cut for handling her misfortune. Other countries do just that and it works pretty well. Cut all the leaches out of the gravy train and the real costs go down considerably.
So she is suing a dead boys family. I hope she gets the money and chokes on it! What a POS!
She's suing the dead kid's estate. That's different. She can only recover whatever assets he had at the time of death (probably next to nothing) Anything that his parents/siblings/whatever hold are perfectly safe.
Yea--sue the dead victim. His estate is wothe what? He was 18? Oh, maybe he was a billionaire. Damages should have been paid by the transit company. Judges and lawyers have lost all reason.
This is more proof that all trial shysters have their consciences surgically removed during law school.
There is nothing unusual here - just because it involves a flying body part is irrelevant. This is based on common law concepts of negligence going back hundreds of years. The person hit on the tracks was negligent - anyone who runs across railroad tracks without bothering to look is not only negligent but is an idiot. Causation is not disputable, the person running on the tracks and being hit by a train resulted in his body flying and hitting another person. Is it reasonably foreseeable that the body of a person being on the tracks and being hit by a fast moving train would go flying - absolutely. It doesn't matter if the kid didn't think of that or intend that consequence! There's no reason this case should not go forward.
But of course there is a reason! He's dead!
So are we going to sue his family for something they didn't have control over? Either way, I'm fairly certain this doesn't get past a jury.
Yah, he was negligent. He paid more than enough for his negligence. The train co. should pay her med bills and maybe lost wages. Seeking anything more is beyond lacking concious. It is EVIL. Thats the point you missed. The law is not an excuse for evil deeds. Don't mistake it as such.
Oh my God! What a terrible way to die. I least it was fast. Feedotter probably should have left out the part about Joho being an being idiot. People make mistakes and sometimes they make terrible mistakes. Why would Mr. Zokhrabov go after this person's estate. Amtrak is not responsible for the accident but it would have been nice if they offered to pay for the aftermath. It's possible they have insurance for this but I don't know. It could be that Joho's family has money and Mr. Zokhrabov is trying to get at it. This story needs more facts.
That's why you sue the estate stupid.
Just what sort of an estate could this teenager have? Are the suers going to get his CD collection?
You are careful, you make good decisions and your minding your own business when some other jackass does something stupid and the result is your injured and have your life screwed up......why shouldn't they compensate?
She already got an arm and a leg. That's all she deserved. (Sorry, had to do it)
Suing over this is ridiculous. What's even worse is the courts are allowing it!!
I agree that she deserves compensation for her loses. That is why people carry accident insurance, short and long term disability, healt...etc. If she slipped in her driveway, who would she sue?
who knows if there is even anything worth settling for but if theres a chance to make money theres a lawyer who will do anything to get it