Le 20/02/2012 00:20, Darren New a écrit :
> On 2/19/2012 11:33, Warp wrote:
>> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2012 11:30, Warp wrote:
>>>>     This crosses the line between stupid and outright sick in the head:
>>
>>> Meh. She's suing the estate to get paid her medical expenses.  A bit
>>> gory,
>>> but remember we don't have government-paid medicine here.
>>
>>    I don't understand how that justifies it in any way.
> 
> I don't understand what you need justified. She's not suing the dead
> kid. She's suing the dead kid's life insurance or whatever, to get paid
> for the damage caused by the dead kid.
> 

Well, indeed, the lawyers of that country are turning things in strange
language.

I'm from an area where the death of one party automatically close all
the pending trials involving that person, as well as ending all
contracts (excepted the explicit death-related ones which changes phases).

At worst, the heirs could have a new issue raised on "profiting from the
behaviour or action of the deceased", but that would at best remove such
profit from the inheritance (assuming there is some heirs and an actual
inheritance).

> If he threw a ball at the train, and it bounced off and hit her and
> smashed up her face, you'd say "sure, she deserves to get reimbursed for
> that expense." The fact that it was a body part shouldn't make a
> difference.
> 
As long as it remains alive, no difference from a ball or a body part.
As soon as he's dead, no difference either here: you cannot sue a dead
person.

Remember that old joke from US, where a lawyer gives the argument that
it was the right arm of the defendant that did it, so the sentence of
jail should apply to the right arm. Judge agrees (fool!!!), to discover
a few instant later that the defendant had a removable right arm...

Post a reply to this message