Unusual personal injury lawsuits come in many different forms. There are those where two individuals each believe that the other is at fault in an auto accident and file lawsuits accordingly. Some cases involve multiple parties and varying levels of accident liability. Others focus on little-known aspects of the law. And then there are those unusual personal injury lawsuits which are pretty gruesome. The suit filed by a woman in connection with a 2008 fatal metra train accident in Edgebrook falls under that last category. On the morning of Saturday, September 13 of that year, an 18-year old man was running through the pouring rain while holding an umbrella in an attempt to catch a Metra train. In the process, he crossed the train tracks just as an inbound train was coming. The train reportedly struck the teen at a speed of about 70 miles per hour, killing him instantly. Now comes the strange part: a woman standing on a platform about 100 feet away was struck by a “chunk” of the man’s body after it was impacted by the train. The debris reportedly knocked the 58-year old bystander over, causing her to injure her shoulder and fracture both her wrist and her leg. Shortly thereafter, the woman filed a personal injury lawsuit against the 18-year old man (or, more specifically, his estate) in order to seek reimbursement for her medical expenses and/or other related damages. A judge in Cook County tossed out the original lawsuit, saying that the deceased man could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. But an Illinois appeals court has reversed that decision, saying that despite the gory and bizarre circumstances, the case should be treated like any other negligence case. Think of it this way: if a person’s arm was slightly struck by a passing train and that person was knocked into another individual who then suffered injuries, the second victim could file suit against the person whose arm was struck under Illinois civil law. Just because the 18-year old man was fatally struck and dismembered does not change the underlying claim of negligence – and the 58-year old woman still has a right to seek damages against the party that caused her injuries.