Dead Teen Sued for Losing Control of Flying Body Parts

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Huh??

In your first post, you stated that the kid "ran out in front of a train." There is no way you would have known that a train was involved if you hadn't read the article linked in the OP, since no one posting prior to you mentioned the presence of a train. And there's no way you could have read the article and concluded that another vehicle was involved. In fact, the article clearly stated that the kid "ran across" the tracks in an unfortunate attempt to catch a nearby train.

Do today's lawyers begin opining before acquainting themselves with the facts of a case?

It was a special Democratic Obama train with magical powers.

[CuteOldGuy]

LOL! Barack the Tanking Engine.

[Little Stevie]

Think about the expression of "running" a stop sign or a red light, Captain. Both idioms make arguing over the semantics no more enlightening than supposition.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Think about the expression of "running" a stop sign or a red light, Captain. Both idioms make arguing over the semantics no more enlightening than supposition.

Are you kidding?

You're seriously suggesting that such an idiom likely applies here, and that a reader might reasonably conclude that another vehicle may have been involved? The writer clearly indicated that the deceased was "running across" the tracks in an attempt to catch another train.

No one with normal reading comprehension capabilities would think the kid had been driving a car. It's really quite clear.