Aunt sues nephew over hug, loses

[KSRBEvans]

My faith in humanity is momentarily restored:


A Connecticut jury needed just 25 minutes Tuesday to decide against a Manhattan human resources manager who sued her own nephew for $127,000 in damages after he accidentally broke her wrist.

Connell barely flinched when the jury’s verdict was read and then fled the Bridgeport courthouse without saying a word.

Her now 12-year-old nephew, Sean Tarala of Westport, Conn., was not in the courtroom.

“We just couldn't find him, you know, liable for what happened,” a female juror said of the boy.

Sean’s lawyer refused to spike the ball and praised the plucky nephew.

http://m.nydailynews.com/new-york/boy-12-trial-conn-breaking-aunt-wrist-article-1.2395756

[CitizenBBN]

saw a blurb on this that made it make sense: the child would likely be covered under the parent's homeowner's insurance. She sued to get the insurance money.

[Darrell KSR]

I actually had a long post pointing out that it wasn't a bad lawsuit, and my computer crashed. Had subrogation issues, competing insurers, and all kind of boring stuff in it. Sometimes things work out :)

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[KSRBEvans]

saw a blurb on this that made it make sense: the child would likely be covered under the parent's homeowner's insurance. She sued to get the insurance money.

Yep. I did insurance litigation for a few years, and was involved in a similar case. A son came and visited his Dad in the middle of an ice storm and--surprise!--slipped and fell on Dad's steps. When son couldn't reach a settlement with Dad's insurer, he sued his Dad. The insurance company referred the case to our firm, and I expected Dad to be working with son, but Dad was really annoyed with son for making the claim in the first place, and then suing when it didn't work out.

Juries in Kentucky aren't allowed to know when insurance is involved (unless the Plaintiff is suing the insurance company directly). But in that circumstance I'm sure Plaintiff's counsel was just hoping to get the case in front of the jury and the jury'd put 2 and 2 together and throw some $ his way. I'm sure that's what the Aunt and her attorney were hoping for here. Good for the jury for deciding the case on its merits.

[CitizenBBN]

Darrell, not sure if you're kidding, but if not that's a bummer, I'd be curious to read it.

BEvans, the blurb I saw somewhere mentioned that the jury was unaware of the insurance issue, which no doubt helped the defendant. I also wondered if the family was complicit in the lawsuit or if like your guy they were miffed at the claim.

One thing I've learned on here over the years is that these cases that seem silly can often be quite intriguing.

[Doc]

Dear Aunt Christie

You are a money grubbing bitch

Love
Sean

[Darrell KSR]

Darrell, not sure if you're kidding, but if not that's a bummer, I'd be curious to read it.


Unfortunately, it's true. Almost never happens to me, but did this time.

The basics were that I saw it as shifting responsibility issues. I teach business law, and when we discuss torts, I describe it as "Bad things happen" law.

Bad things happen, and law and society have developed rules to assign responsibility for bearing the burden of the consequences of that bad thing.

Here, it's easy to see the aunt as a money-grubbing greedy thing. But digging deeper, who has borne the burden of the "bad thing" that has occurred?

Her medical insurance provider.

Why should they bear the burden? Because they have a contract with her that says they will provide medical care for her, subject to the agreement they reach.

But part of that agreement is that if the responsibility for the injury belongs to someone else, then they are entitled to receive a subrogation interest of the first monies that the responsible person pays.

So here, who should bear the burden of the medical costs and expenses of the aunt? Her medical insurance provider, or the homeowner's insurance company for the child, assuming they have homeowner's insurance?

For most of us who have children, we understand that they are a blessing and a curse (I'm joking, of course, about the "curse"). But we appreciate that we have to bear the burden when they cause damage to someone else, whether it is breaking a vase in a store, or breaking someone's wrist accidentally.

Here, the greedy aunt was forced into a situation--rather than a "hug," as the article screams at us, a child leaped into the air, potentially subjecting himself to harm in the event that he was not caught by the aunt. The aunt, realizing that the child was in the air, either consciously or reflexively made a decision to protect the child and catch him--which resulted in her injury, rather than his.

If the child jumped to hug someone because, say, he was their favorite baseball player and unrelated to them, would any of us have any issue with the baseball player and his medical insurer receiving reimbursement for the expenses incurred? Or would the proper assignment of responsibility belong to the child/his parents/their own insurer?

Here, the problem lies in the perception of the aunt. She is unsympathetic. She sued for $127,000 -- more than whatever the medical costs were to remedy her broken wrist, certainly. She complained of an inability to hold her hors d'oeurve plate at a social function. Well, lah ti da. And it's family, after all.

So with those issues, it becomes a different matter, and one that creates a newspaper story that all of us line up and cheer because the right thing was done.

Realizing that my position will be a minority one, I'd argue that the right thing was not done. I'd argue that the bad thing that happened -- the broken wrist -- has a burden, and that burden should be borne by the person who caused it, or the person(s) responsible for the person that caused it.

In MY version of a perfect world, the insurance carrier for the child/child's parents would have reimbursed the cost of all medical expenses paid by the insurance carrier for the injured party, as well as all out of pocket costs incurred by the injured party as well. Pain and suffering? Not so much. Although pain and suffering is deemed to be compensatory in nature, and not punitive, the reality is that most of us see it as punitive based, and I'm not far from that, either.

Anyway, that's basically what I had typed.

[Doc]

Darrell, I agree, I think. Had it been for medical cost then I'd have no issues but because she has trouble holding a hors d'houvers trey? Claim it and let your insurer recoup.

As for pain and suffering, that is part of life. Anybody who goes through life without it, hasn't lived. Sometimes others cause it. Deal with it. If I sued somebody every time they caused me pain, I'd be in court every day and if I was sued every time I caused somebody pain then I'd be in court twice a day

[jazyd]

I don't know a lot of 8 yrs old that are reasonable in something like that. kId says he loves his aunt and then she sues him because she is a dumb azz who can't use her other hand to climb a stairs or hold her trey.

Good for the jury and I hope her lawyer cost her a bunch of money. When the kid finds out and realizes what she did, hope he never speaks to her again.

[Darrell KSR]

Parents have to take responsibility for their for their 8-year old children. Bear responsibility for your children's actions.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk