NY - aunt who sued 8yr old nephew over hug loses lawsuit

[fizzypop]

I still think she sounds like a horrible person, even after her half-a$$ explanations. She's now backpedaling after all the negative comments about her on SM. She didn't just sue him to get to the homeowners insurance. She clearly stated that she thought he was negligent and needed to be taught a lesson. The jury disagreed, and that he acted as a normal eight year old would, and was not liable. I think they did the right thing, and I think it's a shame that he still has contact with her because she seems a little arrogant, petty, and not to mention snooty. Continuing to let him be around her is just waiting for another lawsuit to happen, as she finds something else he does that he needs to learn a lesson about.

 

[LinasK]

She breaks her wrist messing around with a relative and she sues for 127K???

IMO that sounds absolutely crazy! If everyone tried to get a windfall like that at the first opportunity then no one would be able to afford homeowners insurance.

As others have said, I wouldn't want that woman anywhere near my home or in my car or anywhere nearby.

Agreed! Sad that this little boy has to be related to such a greedy person. It was an accident, FGS!!! :banghead::banghead::banghead:And to haul a small child into court over it, GRRR!! Her only concerns are that she can't hold an hors douerves (sp) plate...:notgood:

 

[fizzypop]

Agreed! Sad that this little boy has to be related to such a greedy person. It was an accident, FGS!!! :banghead::banghead::banghead:And to haul a small child into court over it, GRRR!! Her only concerns are that she can't hold an hors douerves (sp) plate...:notgood:

:shame:


Don't forget having trouble walking up 3 flights of stairs. :thinking:

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Agreed! Sad that this little boy has to be related to such a greedy person. It was an accident, FGS!!! :banghead::banghead::banghead:And to haul a small child into court over it, GRRR!! Her only concerns are that she can't hold an hors douerves (sp) plate...:notgood:

If you're not able to hold a plate, your wrist is pretty messed up. I guess she was suppose to say she can't hold a plate with a Big Mac on it to make people more sympathetic?

 

[Hope4More]

I still think she sounds like a horrible person, even after her half-a$$ explanations. She's now backpedaling after all the negative comments about her on SM. She didn't just sue him to get to the homeowners insurance. She clearly stated that she thought he was negligent and needed to be taught a lesson. The jury disagreed, and that he acted as a normal eight year old would, and was not liable. I think they did the right thing, and I think it's a shame that he still has contact with her because she seems a little arrogant, petty, and not to mention snooty. Continuing to let him be around her is just waiting for another lawsuit to happen, as she finds something else he does that he needs to learn a lesson about.

The aunt has had 2 operations and needs a third, none of which was covered by her insurance, for whatever reason. Can't imagine how expensive all that would be...

Her nephew appeared with her on national TV to say he loved her and she loved him, and things weren't what they seemed. His father had to have agreed to allow his son to do the interview, which strongly suggests if not outright says that the aunt has his support too.

If she had to sue the kid to pay for her healthcare, what the heck do you suppose she could have said on the stand other than what she said?? Wink wink, I'm just doing this for the insurance money?

I don't understand why anyone needs more "proof" than her nephew's own word that she isn't a vile evil witch....

 

[flourish]

I'm sure there are plenty of things she can't hold onto well these days. SHE chose to make it an hors d'oeuvres, not something, ANYTHING, related to vital daily living activities. She could have said, "I'm having a hard time doing even the most basic things like serving my plate." It seemed vital for her that everyone knew it was an hors d'oeuvres, NOT a Big Mac, not everyday food, no, very French appetizers!" And instead of "I have difficulty carrying items I use daily from my apartment to work every day," it's "I can't even make it up THREE flights of stairs!"

http://03710ce.netsolhost.com/wordpress1/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Kellie-Schorr-Tips.jpg

 

[Donjeta]

I think the hors d'oeuvres plate was probably a poor choice of an example. How often do you have to hold a hors d'oeuvres plate anyway and why can't you hold it with the other hand. She might have significant problems with the wrist but this probably made her difficulties seem very trivial to the jury.

 

[jjenny]

Yea, choices in the lawsuit seem kind of strange. If she has trouble holding things, hors d'oeuvres plate seems like a bizarre choice to put into lawsuit, because most jurors aren't going to empathize with that. Walking up the stairs doesn't require a wrist, so not sure why it was in the lawsuit (she isn't alleging her legs were broken).

 

[jjenny]

If you're not able to hold a plate, your wrist is pretty messed up. I guess she was suppose to say she can't hold a plate with a Big Mac on it to make people more sympathetic?

I am sure there are other things she couldn't hold that would have made jury more sympathetic (assuming she still has a problem with her wrist).

 

[eileenhawkeye]

It's possible she gave plenty of examples in her testimony and that is what the media decided to run with. I still don't see the big deal. Is she suppose to say appetizers so she's more ~relatable? I'm not just not seeing how hors d'oeuvres makes her out of touch. So she entertains a lot and serves something better than potato chips. Big deal. OMG, she has friends and family and she likes to cook--How dare she! HASNT SHE HEARD OF TAKEOUT? LOL. If she said she couldn't carry a plate with a Big Mac, piece of chocolate cake, or she couldn't open a bottle of soda, people would be donating to a fund for her.

Considering the nephew (and his family) has supported her, and it's been revealed that the lawsuit was an attempt to get money from the insurance company and the story has been sensationalized by the media, comments against her just seem petty now. So she lives a different life than you. I'm just not understanding the vitirol towads her due to the hors d'oeuvres comment.

 

[jjenny]

She lost her lawsuit, didn't she?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

She lost her lawsuit, didn't she?

And where was it said she lost her lawsuit due to the hors d'oeuvres comment? She's from a town that is the 10th wealthiest in the United States. Median home price is $1.2 million. If that's the demographic serving on the jury, they could probably relate to entertaining and serving hors d'oeuvres. Her examples in the testimony make sense when you consider the area that she's living in.

 

[Sonya610]

Yea, choices in the lawsuit seem kind of strange. If she has trouble holding things, hors d'oeuvres plate seems like a bizarre choice to put into lawsuit, because most jurors aren't going to empathize with that.

I agree, it was ridiculous. If she couldn't hold the freaking plate she could have put the plate on a table or even on her lap.

Now if she said she could no longer carry groceries or pick up bags of dog/animal food or do other frequent activities/chores and she has to have someone do all of that for her frequently that would be something people could relate to.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I agree, it was ridiculous. If she couldn't hold the freaking plate she could have put the plate on a table or even on her lap.

Now if she said she could no longer carry groceries or pick up bags of dog/animal food or do other frequent activities/chores and she has to have someone do all of that for her frequently that would be something people could relate to.

IDK why she needs to be relatable. She's not looking to be "America's Sweetheart" in movies. Plus, the backlash was largely due to her suing her nephew over a hug, the mother dying recently, and the general public's extreme dislike for lawsuits. People would still be calling for head if she used your examples. They may not call her "out of touch" but she would still be called "greedy". Just look at the public's rage (almost 25 years!) for the "Hot Coffee" lawsuit. Let's not act like people would be supportive of this lawsuit if it weren't for the hors d'oeuvres comment.

Anyway, just another example of the Internet outrage machine. We know now that the story was not what it looked like and once again, the public jumped to conclusions with their pitchforks ready. So, she enjoys hors d'oeuvres. It doesn't make her a bad person. It just tells me she likes to entertain and she likes to cook. Using a French word does not make one evil.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I'm a little late to this rodeo, but some of the early comments alluded to the aunt's actions being related to the fact that she doesn't have children of her own.

Please, people, don't judge like this. I don't have children of my own for personal reasons which I think are very good reasons, namely that I don't think I would be a good parent and I think children deserve to have good parents.

That doesn't mean that I hate children--I don't, I enjoy them so much I often wonder if I was too hard on myself--or would not be able to understand that an eight-year-old leaping at his auntie after exclaiming that he loved her was acting age-appropriately.

<steps off soapbox to continue reading up on case>

 

[sorrell skye]

IDK why she needs to be relatable. She's not looking to be "America's Sweetheart" in movies. Plus, the backlash was largely due to her suing her nephew over a hug, the mother dying recently, and the general public's extreme dislike for lawsuits. People would still be calling for head if she used your examples. They may not call her "out of touch" but she would still be called "greedy". Just look at the public's rage (almost 25 years!) for the "Hot Coffee" lawsuit. Let's not act like people would be supportive of this lawsuit if it weren't for the hors d'oeuvres comment.

Anyway, just another example of the Internet outrage machine. We know now that the story was not what it looked like and once again, the public jumped to conclusions with their pitchforks ready. So, she enjoys hors d'oeuvres. It doesn't make her a bad person. It just tells me she likes to entertain and she likes to cook. Using a French word does not make one evil.

BBM

She needed to be someone that others were able to empathize with in order for the jury that heard her case to be able to relate to (empathize with) her.

Apparently, the jurors weren't able to relate to/empathize with her. That's on her & her attorney(s), who failed to make her relatable.

Just because someone is accidentally injured doesn't mean that someone else is automatically at fault.

 

[Donjeta]

No one said she's an evil person for enjoying hors d'oeuvres or knowing a French word.

It's just that if you want a lot of dollars for damages you have to show significant injuries, and if the most prominent thing about your story that sticks in people's minds is having a minor difficulty at this one party you went recently it may seem completely trivial to the jury who weigh your claims.

 

[Sonya610]

I'm a little late to this rodeo, but some of the early comments alluded to the aunt's actions being related to the fact that she doesn't have children of her own.

I don't have kids either, my reasons are not as noble as yours, I have just never liked kids all that much.

But I have to admit the jumping on her thing strikes me as a bit strange. Was this the first time? Or did he do this before and did the parents know about it?

If he had a habit of launching himself at unsuspecting people then the parents did have a duty to tell him to stop. If he did that to a frail elder it could be the equivalent of a death sentence if it lead to a shattered hip.

 

[Steleheart]

Imagine if EVREYONE Who got injured had to go to a jury trial to pay their medical bills?
No that's not how it works. An injured party files a claim, usually the provider takes all the policy information and bills the insurance for normal required medical bills, but there is no mention in the articles of how much was paid out on her behalf previous to the lawsuit.

It's when the insurance coverage is exhausted and the injured person needs/ wants additional payment as in scarring, future losses, pain and suffering, emotional distress, etc. that it goes to a jury trial.

Yes there can be a greed factor, that's what the jury decides, they weed out the greed and determine what coverage was provided. We don't get to see the entirety of testimony on both sides but I am certain the doctors, hospitals and prior billing were all included. If not then it was a kangaroo court, and I doubt that.

IMO the jury saw it as frivolous and lacking sufficient merit. The money wasn't ever going to come from the child's piggy bank.

MOO

 

[eileenhawkeye]

BBM

She needed to be someone that others were able to empathize with in order for the jury that heard her case to be able to relate to (empathize with) her.

Apparently, the jurors weren't able to relate to/empathize with her. That's on her & her attorney(s), who failed to make her relatable.

Just because someone is accidentally injured doesn't mean that someone else is automatically at fault.

So if someone is paralyzed at an amusement park (the ride malfunctions...no fault of their own) and they can no longer play their favorite sport, polo, that means the jury would acquit because polo is seen as a rich person's sport and the person is not ~relatable? Do you think someone in that situation who says they can no longer play football deserves more money than someone who can no longer play polo? After all, the jury can probably relate to the football player better.

I don't think we've heard for sure that she lost the case because of her hors d'oeuvres comment. I think people just want to believe that. There could have been a clause in the insurance policy that made her ineligible to claim. But people want to think that she 100% had a case, was 100% entitled to the money she wanted, but the jury "punished" her because she's a ~snob.

There have been cases where sympathetic people do not get any money in a civil suit, and cases where unsympathetic people do get money. Why? Because the jury puts aside their personal opinion of the plantiff and looks at the facts of the case.