Hiroyuki Joho, Man Killed By Train, Sued After His Flying Body Parts Injured Woman

Dead men tell no tales -- but they can be sued.

A state appeals court ruled that a dead man can be held responsible for the injuries his body parts caused after he was struck by a train.

The Chicago Tribune reports that the court found it was "reasonably foreseeable" that the Amtrak train would kill 18-year-old Hiroyuki Joho, sending his body parts flying.

In 2008, Joho was killed while running to catch a train in the pouring rain, the Tribune reports. His estate is being sued by Gayane Zokhrabov, whose leg and wrist were broken after the collision.

Zokhrabov's lawyer, Leslie Rosen, argued that the case should be treated like a regular negligence case, "no different than if a train passenger had been injured after the engineer hit the brakes," according to the Tribune.

Gawker writes that the ruling should serve as a warning to people who are killed in train crashes.

"If you die in a horrific train accident, be sure to aim your severed body away from any bystanders," writes Adrian Chen.

Complex blogger Tanya Ghahremani writes that the court's ruling offers proof that "not even death can prevent the system from biting you in the ass."

Joho isn't the only dead person to be sued for causing injury. In 2010 the New York Post reported that a cop involved in the fatal shooting of Sean Bell filed a lawsuit against his estate claiming that Bell injured him with his car.

Comments

[majornutt2]

02:28 PM on 01/03/2012

I better check with my insurance agent, see if I'm covered for this senerio

[anti politricks]

11:56 AM on 01/03/2012

from the article and comments (which provide more info than the article), we can't be talking about more than $20k. would it really be too much for amtrak to "donate" money to Gayane Zokhrabov to cover the leg and wrist injuries costs.....as a courtesy for having to witness someone 'explode' in front of and onto you? or maybe the city could do this donation....it can't set them back more than, say, the average cost on a luncheon for their politicians meetings?

the sad thing about this story that no one here is commenting on is that this is the society we live in. we are pitted against each other, even after the tragic death of a youth. we don't come together and relieve or assist each other. it's a dog eat dog world and puppies are on the menu these days :(

[jasev01]

03:12 PM on 01/02/2012

I'm sure there is a lot in the estate of an 18 year old

[Kevin Rayburn]

09:53 PM on 01/02/2012

when my 2 week old son died the state wanted a list of the assets of his estate, my guess is they were wanting to scam more $$ off a taxpayer.

[oxjr]

02:30 AM on 01/03/2012

I have been trying to find the exact reason she has to sue.

Her medical bills would have totaled between $7500 and $12'000 not including any complications. I am sure his estate would not even put a dent in that.

I am going to assume that she is not suing his estate expecting actual payment - but that her insurance requires her to exhaust all possibility of having the negligent party pay.

Hopefully a real lawyer comes on this thread and answers the reason why the plaintiff had to pursue this case. I feel sorry for her, she is being demonized on this thread with no real explanation as to why she is in this legal predicament.

[jasev01]

04:19 PM on 01/03/2012

well I am a real one.  I mean for reasons like subrogation yes you are correct,they would sue for insurance.  Honestly it makes sense that what I would do but when you read it, it sounds cold and a waste especially in today world.  A high school graduate at 18 generally does not have much especially considering if they even had an inheritance it might not have vested until 21 and whatever the estate is must go to the debt of burying the person and paying debts.  I would think its better or more logical to look to the person's own insurance or a victims compensation fund.  However again I understand.  It was just a backhanded quip as to how our system works, we look to sue in the most outrageous conditions.  Imagine your child passing in such a way and then when dealing with the tragedy you get a letter saying you must deal with this law suit.

[Mrsbean54]

10:55 AM on 01/02/2012

Man, this is just unfortunate for everyone involved. On the surface it sounds horrible for this woman to sue the dead guy, but to be hit with severed body parts hard enough to break a leg and wrist would surely cause emotional damage far worse than physical damage....and she may not be able to pay the bills. The poor guy wasn't committing suicide, but he did run right out in front of the train.

It's just bad on all sides...

[aicequeen36]

12:19 AM on 01/02/2012

wtf? this disgusts me,to the woman with broken bones(minor injuries) you are an example of greed,and i feel even if the injury was more substantial i would not have pursued this ,given the fact the estate was that of a young man who lost his life tragically.

[oxjr]

01:31 AM on 01/03/2012

$7500 is the tab for a broken leg with no complications, shoulder injuries can require months if not years of physiotherapy. As an 18 year old I am pretty sure his estate will not even begin to make a dent in those bills.

Unfortunately the young man was already found negligent in his own death in another court case. That means Gayane Zokhrabov insurance can withhold payment until she exhaust all other remedies.

Jeung-Hee Park (the boy's mother) is aware of the necessity of this suit, but she sought to have the portion of negligence divided between her son and Amtrak.

[WhippetGood]

06:06 PM on 01/03/2012

Assuming she has insurance, her insurance can't withhold payment while forcing her to litigate. You are right, it (the insurance company) can seek to recover payment from anyone deemed liable for her injuries, but it has to take care of her in the interim. If it does not, and leaves her hanging, she can sue her insurance company for bad faith breach of contract and seek punitive damages from the insurance company (at least she could in my state). I don't know that the insurance company would be the driving force behind this case. Lawsuits are expensive, and the damages the insurance company would have to pay out here are not likely enough to warrant bringing a case (as opposed to merely holding out its hand to be paid back under the insurance contract if she wins the case she decided to bring).

I've been sparing with you and I don't agree with some of the points you have made, but I do agree that we need to look behind the headlines in most cases (not just this one) and I sincerely applaud you for spreading the word about Hot Coffee, and for really trying to understand this story. At the end of the day, we would be better off if we all were half as inquisitive as you have been.

Cheers from a Wolverine.

[cheechazteca]

08:28 PM on 01/01/2012

We are all negligent by existing. Someone might get hurt just because we exist.
Let's all sue the whole planet and then burn all the money, then dig a hole and bury ourselves in it forever.

[anamensis]

06:53 PM on 01/01/2012

As a lawyer, I find nothing unusual or wacky about the court's ruling. Mr. Joho certainly violated a law or regulation by running on railroad tracks. When a person violates a law or regulation that is considered negligence per se. Under tort law, Mr. Joho is responsible for the foreseeable consequences of his negligence. That would be true if the engineer applied the emergency brakes and passengers were injured as a result. Similarly, if the engineer suffered post traumatic shock because of this incident that would be compensable. I do not find it a stretch that injuries caused by flying body parts is a foreseeable consequence of being on a railroad track when a train approaches. That Mr. Joho is dead would not be a consideration.

[oxjr]

02:36 AM on 01/03/2012

As a lawyer - can you clear up why the plaintiff has had to sue?
I see the need for precedent for future cases.(which may be why her lawyer took the case)
I see the logistics of having the negligent party pay her a fair remedy - but it seems unlikely that a fair remedy is even possible from the estate.

Is it something to do with insurance requirements?
Is it to make sure that the plaintiff is entitled to any awards from any other lawsuits?

I have been trying to remind people on this thread that GV is a victim here - but her motivation for legal action is a bit fuzzy since remedy is unlikely.

[josephine12]

06:26 PM on 01/01/2012

People are outraged that the woman injured is suing the young man who ran on train tracks, in the pouring rain, his vision obscured by an umbrella, and was killed by an oncoming train.

are they also outraged that Joho's mother sued the train company because the trains weren't running on schedule, which caused him to run? She lost, of course, because train delays are not negligent.
Running on wet train tracks in the pouring rain - yeah, that's negligent.

[josephine12]

04:47 PM on 01/01/2012

It would be nice if the Huffpost article gave the full information. They left out the fact that Joho's mother filed a suit against the train company. Her son ran on train tracks in the pouring rain, under an umbrella, which obstructed his view, and he was killed by a train. His mother sued the train company for not informing passengers that the trains were not running on schedule that day. She lost.

Perhaps people's outrage over Zokhrabov's lawsuit is misplaced.

[josephine12]

03:42 PM on 01/01/2012

what isn't being looked at s this - when you have injuries after an accident, SOMEONE has to pay for the medical bills, lost wages, etc. Submit the bill to your insurance company, and the insurance company will try to find if some other party could be responsible for the injuries. It's often the insurance company behind a lawsuit, not the individual who needs their bills paid.

Insurance companies do this all the time. If you are injured in a car wreck caused by another person's poor driving, and that person is killed - your medical bills will go to the driver's insurance company, because he caused your injuries. The fact that he died in the car accident has no bearing on who is responsible for the bills. if he didn't have insurance, his estate is responsible.
Just because the man causing the accident was running for a train instead of walking, and there's no insurance for negligence in running - he's still responsible for her injuries, and therefore her medical bills.

[nanaofmysky]

12:24 PM on 01/01/2012

OMG! What is wrong with people? The poor young man is dead! I do not think that was his plan. Lawyers must be hard up for money to even take on a case like that. How much is she getting out of this?

[josephine12]

05:15 PM on 01/01/2012

How much money is she getting? Not as much as the parent of the guy who was killed, who sued the train company because the trains weren't running on schedule, causing his injury. Oh, yeah, she lost that lawsuit, because her son wasn't taking precautions for his own safety.

[nanaofmysky]

06:02 PM on 01/01/2012

Couldn't she sue the train company then too? It seems that they are the ones at fault.I did not know she lost.Huff post does not always give all the information. Maybe he was the one that was running late. Just thinking.

[oxjr]

05:46 PM on 01/01/2012

She will be getting nothing more than a simple remedy. Civil courts are designed to simply "remedy" a wrong doing.

Punitive damages (huge payoffs) are only given when the jury feels that simply awarding a 'fair' remedy will not deter a wrong doer. If Pepsi accidentally put poison in its pop and it was cheaper to just keep paying the 'fair' lawsuits than fix what caused the accident - then they would probably keep poisoning people. Punitive damage rewards are used to make sure they fix the problem. Since the defendant is dead, there is no need for any punitive damages.

Gayane Zokhrabov was injured by a negligent party - the young man took a foolish risk running unto the tracks and cause him to lose his life, and to gravely injury an innocent person. Someone else pointed out that in this state her medical insurance will not pay for her medical bills until all legal avenues to hold the negligent party accountable. People on this thread are so fixated on the gruesome death of this poor young man, that they ignore the fact that he cause this woman's injuries - and obviously they caused her a huge financial burden that she is still in court 4 years later.

[nanaofmysky]

06:24 PM on 01/01/2012

Thank-you for clearing this up for me. I hope her insurance will now cover her hardship.I am sorry for the young mans death AND for her injuries.

[rockysparks]

12:13 PM on 01/01/2012

The judge that allowed this should be disbarred ...

[oxjr]

06:41 PM on 01/01/2012

That judge just protected your 7th amendment rights.

I have a legal responsibility to conduct my self in a manner that causes no harm to another person. If I chose to take a risk with my own health and well being then that is my choice - but when that risk can cause harm to others, I am negligent. The Judge looked at this bizarre case and had to strip it to the bare facts. Did the defendant take a risk (yes) is it reasonable for a person to understand that risk could transcend to others (yes). Hiroyuki Joho is lucky that he only killed himself and injured one other person with his foolish action. The train could have derailed trying to stop - killing dozens of people.

Civil Court is there to protect you from being financially devastated by the negligence of others. This case makes sure that protection doesn't vanish when the plaintiff is sympathetic and the case is unusual. There is little difference between this case and suing the estate of a drunk driver, a speeder, someone who commits suicide (jumps onto you from an overpass) etc etc.

[rockysparks]

10:29 AM on 01/02/2012

Civil Court may be there to protect us. But there is no case here. Arguments such as yours are exactly what's wrong with our American legal system. Now go chase someone else's ambulance. I'm not interested in discussiing this with you any further.

[oxjr]

10:27 PM on 01/01/2012

Your reply was scrubbed.

The legal system is not overburdened.

That is a message drilled into your head by corporations that want to reduce your 7th amendment rights.

She will not win some huge settlement - she will be give a remedy equal to medical bills and time off work. She probably won't seek pain and suffering as his estate is not even going to cover her remedy. And since the negligent party is not alive to be punished - there will be no punitive damages either.

And here is one little tidbit that you may want to consider.

n her state (according to someone else on this thread) a person injured by negligence has to exhaust all avenues of having the negligent party pay before the injured party's insurance will kick in.(which is why this case had to go to appeal) Meaning she may be awarded several thousand dollars, but his estate is less than a thousand - only then will her insurance pay the balance. So Mr Rockysparks, in the end his family will not be paying much of anything - but she still has to sue the estate. Otherwise the entire cost of her medical bills come out of her pocket- or are you offering to pay her medical bills out of the kindness of your heart? It won't be too much, $12'000 give or take a thousand.

And btw - being manipulated by a tabloid article is the definition of what you called me.

[rockysparks]

07:19 PM on 01/05/2012

The judge was wrong. Most people with a brain or a sense of morality would know that.

It's an old joke, but what do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of an ocean?

Answer: A good start ...

[ebanks84]

09:00 AM on 01/01/2012

"Gawker writes that the ruling should serve as a warning to people who are killed in train crashes."

How are people who are killed "warned" about anything?

If that isn't the dumbest sentence of all times, I don't know what is.

[MWA1111]

09:55 AM on 01/01/2012

Ummm... maybe a little tongue in cheek sarcasm???

[ebanks84]

05:23 PM on 01/01/2012

Up here, you never know when sarcasm is being used because people can say some of the dumbest things and not be sarcastic at all I've learned. I'm not good at sarcasm anyway :).

[J0E1]

01:30 PM on 01/01/2012

It was a joke.  A very, very, obvious one.

[ebanks84]

05:12 PM on 01/01/2012

It wasn't funny or obvious to me.

[ebanks84]

05:25 PM on 01/01/2012

By the way, I like your bio Joe!

[jandos]

10:46 PM on 12/31/2011

What ridiculousness. I wouldn't and couldn't in good conscience sue someone for that, especially considering the sad result. I would never be able to look anyone I knew in the face if I went through with a lawsuit like that. What is wrong with people?

[ebanks84]

08:54 AM on 01/01/2012

Money hungry that's what.

[oxjr]

05:57 PM on 01/01/2012

What money? The most she is going to end up with is being made "whole" again. Meaning the entire suit will go to her insurance company (who btw will not pay a dime till she exhaust all legal avenues to hold the negligent party accountable), she will get some lost wages (but only an average - so if she was due for a promotion or was going to work overtime, none of that is considered). She may get some pain and suffering money - but that will be almost nothing.

If Gayane Zokhrabov has had to escalate this case, and endure the nightmare of this day over and over, it is probably because the incident financially devastated her, not because she expects a payout. She is a completely innocent person who does not deserve to be demonized.

[josephine12]

04:43 PM on 01/01/2012

does it matter at all the the dead man's mother sued the TRAIN company for his death?
He ran on the train tracks, under an umbrella, in the pouring rain, and she is blaming the train company for not informing him that his train was delayed that day.

[waitforitwaitforit]

04:34 PM on 12/31/2011

Ah, the wonderful American legal system. Becoming more and more like putrefied pig spleen with each passing day.

Henry VI, Part 2 Act 4, Scene 2