Worst Aunt Ever

[markw]

According to the Connecticut Post, Connell told the court "I live in Manhattan in a third-floor walk-up so it has been very difficult, and we all know how crowded it is in Manhattan." And that, "I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d'oeuvre plate."

http://www.today.com/parents/worst-aunt-ever-sues-12-year-old-nephew-after-hug-t49991

 

[tyhjaarpa]

What did I even read/see/listen..

 

[herbu]

Interesting. Seems she HAD to sue for the homeowner's insurance to pay. I had not heard that. So sad our "insurance" has come to this.

 

[rojo]

http://gawker.com/aunt-didnt-want-to-sue-nephew-lawyer-says-insurance-c-1736551054

According to that page, "The injury happened in Connecticut, and under that state’s law, filing the claim obliged Connell to take the responsible party—who happened to be 12—to court." Maybe it's not scumbag Aunt nor scumbag insurance company, but scumbag state laws to blame this time. Then again, who is it that lobbies for insurance laws? Maybe scumbag insurance company isn't quite off the table.

 

[Steve81]

I personally love this tidbit from this article:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jury-aunt-who-sued-over-hug-gets-no-money/ar-AAfnsqA

“The injuries, losses and harms to the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the minor defendant in that a reasonable 8-year-old under those circumstances would know or should have known that a forceful greeting such as the one delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff could cause the harms and losses suffered by the plaintiff,” the lawsuit claimed"

For starters, what "reasonable 8-year-old" would believe that jumping up to hug their aunt would result in breaking her wrist? Second, wtf is a "reasonable 8-year-old"???

 

[KEW]

Interesting. Seems she HAD to sue for the homeowner's insurance to pay. I had not heard that. So sad our "insurance" has come to this.

And so sad our media has come to this. Isn't there something relevant they can talk about instead of presenting this with a gratuitous appeal to our sensibilities.
My guess is they did not include the kid in the story because he still loves his aunt ... because she has continued to love him while having to go through this formality to get her medical bills paid.
It is the kid's (or the dad's) place to initiate resentment (which can then be covered by the media). Instead the "victims" are silent and we have the media initiating resentment because they think it will sell as a story (which seems to be working).

 

[markw]

Before y'all tar and feather me, please note that the article I posted was the first one to mention the insurance aspect of this issue.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/10/446863-nephew-worst-aunt-ever-reveals-media-forgot-mention-coverage/?author=vt&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=legal&utm_term=ijamerica

 

[j_garcia]

She got nothing today. What does that mean for big insurance?

 

[markw]

She got nothing today. What does that mean for big insurance?

I'm curious about that, too. I'm hoping that merely filing a lawsuit will force them to pay her damages.

 

[Chu Gai]

According to the Connecticut Post, Connell told the court "I live in Manhattan in a third-floor walk-up so it has been very difficult, and we all know how crowded it is in Manhattan." And that, "I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d'oeuvre plate."

http://www.today.com/parents/worst-aunt-ever-sues-12-year-old-nephew-after-hug-t49991

I always have my man servant carry my hors d'oeuve plate.

 

[herbu]

So, I go over to your house for dinner. In the process of hugging/playing w/ your kids, I break my wrist. Then I expect YOUR homeowner's insurance to pay for it.

Whole thing sounds hokey to me. I would let my own insurance cover it. And I would pay the deductible myself. This is not YOUR fault. No negligence. No intent. No fault. How is this the homeowner's fault? I think that is the insurance company's position, and why they want a "guilty" verdict in a lawsuit before they pay.

 

[KEW]

So, I go over to your house for dinner. In the process of hugging/playing w/ your kids, I break my wrist. Then I expect YOUR homeowner's insurance to pay for it.

Whole thing sounds hokey to me. I would let my own insurance cover it. And I would pay the deductible myself. This is not YOUR fault. No negligence. No intent. No fault. How is this the homeowner's fault? I think that is the insurance company's position, and why they want a "guilty" verdict in a lawsuit before they pay.

I'm not really sure where or if the line is drown. A more understandable/familiar case is your 7 year old kid decides to short-cut through my yard, sh!t happens and he falls in my pool and drowns. I am liable for this situation, because I did not exercise reasonable precautions by fencing off the pool, even if I had no trespassing signs.

That type of scenario has set a precedent of the homeowner (hopefully insurance) of the property assumes liability for injuries. I don't know how deep this precedent goes. If you twist your ankle on a root in my yard? If you just slip and fall on wet grass? Lots of shades of gray and that is where lawyers make the most profit - arguing those shades of gray!

 

[Swerd]

http://gawker.com/aunt-didnt-want-to-sue-nephew-lawyer-says-insurance-c-1736551054

According to that page, "The injury happened in Connecticut, and under that state’s law, filing the claim obliged Connell to take the responsible party—who happened to be 12—to court." Maybe it's not scumbag Aunt nor scumbag insurance company, but scumbag state laws to blame this time. Then again, who is it that lobbies for insurance laws? Maybe scumbag insurance company isn't quite off the table.

When you said Connecticut, you hit the nail on the head. For many years, the headquarters of many large insurance companies have been located there. See pp 5-6 on this http://www.hartfordinfo.org/issues/wsd/economicdevelopment/IFS_Impact_Study_12-06.pdf

It lists 72 insurance companies:
17 life insurance
11 accident & health insurance
5 hospital & medical service
26 fire, marine & casualty insurance
5 surety insurance
8 reinsurance

Just maybe , those companies have had an influence on state laws.

 

[Steve81]

I'm not really sure where or if the line is drown. A more understandable/familiar case is your 7 year old kid decides to short-cut through my yard, sh!t happens and he falls in my pool and drowns. I am liable for this situation, because I did not exercise reasonable precautions by fencing off the pool, even if I had no trespassing signs.

That kind of case falls under the standard of an "attractive nuisance".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine

Beyond that, you would also be liable if you knew (or should have known) that something on your property was faulty (a loose step, or a broken chair for example) and that caused an injury. Suffice it to say, an eight year old that gives big hugs doesn't fall under that standard of liability either.