Aunt sues nephew, 12, for six figures over broken wrist

[Gator]

Seriously, I sometimes ask myself if this world in which I live is real.

From the story:

Her lawsuit claims his “negligent” and “careless” show of affection caused her serious injuries and losses, noting “I was at a party recently and it was difficult to hold my hors d’oeuvres plate.”

http://gawker.com/manhattan-woman-sues-12-year-old-nephew-for-breaking-he-1736230311

 

[JC]

I would imagine the family's insurance will cover this and both families will make out ok.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

I could totally see my sister doing this.

 

[Webster]

I would imagine the family's insurance will cover this and both families will make out ok.

I'm guessing that they figured out that it falls under the homeowner's policy.

 

[Ace]

Hors d’oeuvres? She's lucky she doesn't live in the Midwest and have to carry casseroles to potluck dinners.

On the positive side, guess she won't be getting any more exuberent hugs!

 

[Oggiedoggie]

The dear auntie is probably just trying to take the kid's mind off of dwelling on the fact that his mother died last year.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

The kid needs to be a better technician at giving hugs.

 

[dixiehack]

Jury to Aunt Jen: **** off.

Jurors rule against woman who sued nephew, 8, for breaking her wrist during hug

 

[The Big Ragu]

This is ultimate justice to me. I love when things work out as they should.

1) The jury told her to **** off.
2) The woman not only didn't see any money, the story blew up negatively on her and she is now infamous.

 

[linotype]

What am I missing here? Almost nothing about this story makes sense to me.

This woman has to have at least a sliver of awareness of how the world operates in 2015. Even when she filed the lawsuit a few years ago, she just HAD to know she was in for an absolute ****storm both on social media and, really, in the jury room. There's just no way on Earth that a jury of any size would ever side with an woman suing her now-motherless nephew for $127K because he hugged her too exuberantly. And this was no spur-of-the-moment decision -- the lawsuit was filed years ago and she could have aborted it at any moment, yet she was apparently confident enough in it to let it go to trial.

So what's the point, exactly? What did she hope to get out of it? A chunk of the kid's inheritance from his dead mother? Was this simply a procedural step toward collecting a payout from the kid's dad's homeowner's insurance policy? None of that was ever made clear.

If this was as superficial and simple as it's been portrayed in every news story I've read about this, she's not only one of the worst human beings on the face of the earth, she's also a ****ing tone-deaf idiot.

 

[Riptide]

She must be a Lupica.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Story in Daily News has her and her lawyer saying it was a homeowner's insurance thing -- the parents' homeowners didn't pay her, and in CT she had to sue the person instead of the insurance company to pursue it.

Jennifer Connell: Suit against nephew meant to be 'simple'

 

[Monday Morning Sportswriter]

This happens pretty frequently in New York. A variation is that the insurance company feels like it gets nowhere so if files the lawsuit on that person's behalf. In my little area, it's come up with people being bit by neighbors' dogs or kids getting burned at someone's backyard barbecue.

 

[dixiehack]

She must be a Lupica.

Worse. She works in HR.

 

[britwrit]

...And the semi-touching ending.

Aunt and nephew together go on the Today show to say they love each other, no hard feelings, that it was the only way to get the insurance company pay up.

'Worst aunt ever' speaks out: 'I was never comfortable' suing nephew

 

[Brian]

Like the McDonald's hot coffee case, there is usually much more to these lawsuits than what a simple headline implies. Not saying she's a great person or anything, but it's not some lady just suing an eight-year old. There's a reason. It might be a greedy, stupid reason. But there's a reason.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Why would the homeowners' insurance pay for something when there was nothing defective with the home, or a hazard in the home? They could argue that the kid doesn't constitute a hazard.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Why would the homeowners' insurance pay for something when there was nothing defective with the home, or a hazard in the home? They could argue that the kid doesn't constitute a hazard.

I'm not sure exactly. But I'm getting sued right now because a guy broke his ankle on my property. The insurance company tried to contact him two years ago when it first happened and said they would have paid medical had he returned the call, whether or not I was negligent. (They don't believe I was.)

 

[The Big Ragu]

Why would the homeowners' insurance pay for something when there was nothing defective with the home, or a hazard in the home? They could argue that the kid doesn't constitute a hazard.

My homeowners insurance policy includes liability protection that is supposed to cover someone else being accidentally injured.

 

[linotype]

Yeah, I was right, this was entirely a procedural step as part of an insurance claim. Makes a hell of a lot more sense now.

Still, it would have been nice had that been properly explained to save this woman a social media ****storm. Poor form by the CT Post, which started this all by taking a purely superficial look at this instead of providing the context. You'd think an editor at the paper in Connecticut, the insurance capital of the world, would have thought of this.