On 20-2-2012 2:24, Darren New wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 15:34, Stephen wrote:
>> On 19/02/2012 11:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>> Why *shouldn't* she get the money from the person who caused the injury?
>>
>> Because he is dead.
>
> Even better. He doesn't need it any more. :-)

Just for clarification, the USA system might work different than ours.

In the Netherlands the heirs inherit everything a person owns including 
his debts. Here suing a dead person would mean suing the heirs. Assuming 
that he did own less than the doctor's and lawyer's bills, losing their 
son could also be a financial disaster for the parents.

If otoh the system works in such a way that the medical and other costs 
must come from his personal belongings, you might argue that he does not 
need it anymore anyway.

Still this wasn't a case of suicide and in the eyes of a simple European 
not even a case of negligence, but simply a case of bad luck.* This 
whole concept of trying to blame someone for bad luck is completely 
alien to me. At the same time I understand why the US system (the 
combination of a broken health system and no cure no pay lawyers) gives 
rise to this sort of ridiculous court cases where everybody looses 
except the lawyers.

*) she might as well be hit by the remains of a deer crossing the line. 
Oh no, that wouldn't work as just bad luck. She could sue Amtrak for not 
preventing the deer from going on the track...
A goose dying in mid air and dropping precisely at the front of the 
train at the right time. Amtrak should have put up nets in the 
neighbourhood of stations...


-- 
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the 
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.

Post a reply to this message