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

[Hope4More]

I have a different perspective on this whole "suing a family member" thing than what's been in the media and what most people think.

Many years ago my parents and aunt (in 1 car) were in an auto accident. Underage, unlicensed driver hit them. My dad was seriously injured. Aunt, who was sitting in the backseat, had a broken ankle which required surgery.

Anyway, my dad's insurance had to pick up the cost since the other driver (uninjured) had no insurance and wasn't of legal age to drive. For my aunt to have her medical bills paid and get a settlement, she had to 'sue' my dad ... which was really suing his insurance company.

They joked about it for years because it sounds bad but isn't. It's the way to get an auto insurance company to pay when one is an injured party and the injury is caused through circumstances of an insured who is the driver of the car in which you are injured.

Bottomline: It's not *personal.* This is what people don't understand. The aunt isn't suing her young nephew because she is angry at him or doesn't love him. Medical injuries can be thousands and sometimes in cases of serious accidents, hundreds of thousands of $$. People may not like the reasons she is using to determine the amount of injury she sustained, but the action of the suit is solely about the insurance company paying for medical bills.

Exactly. It's called subrogation. The aunt's medical insurance company doesn't want to pay her med bills if they don't have to. The accident could theoretically be covered by her nephew's dad's homeowner insurance. Her insurance company tells her she needs to try to get the homeowner's insurance to pay. To do that she must sue. She isn't allowed to sue the dad, she must sue the person "responsible" for her injury, and she must sue for the amount specified by her med insurance company.

As someone else pointed out, it is entirely possible she tried to lose the case on purpose. The CT paper originally reporting the story noted that she actually smiled when she heard she lost.

Anyway, I still don't get why anyone thinks she's a bad person. This story grabbed my attention - as it was meant to do- because I felt horrible for the nephew, especially given that he'd lost his mother in the past year.

After hearing him say the media had twisted everything and that he and his aunt love each other, the original story was over. What's left for me is curiosity about why folks are still beating up on the aunt.

Whatever happened to her wrist was serious enough to require hospitalization and at least two surgeries. A bad aunt would have made her nephew feel guilty for hurting her. Instead she didn't tell him she'd been hurt, because she didn't want to ruin his birthday party. And geez.....the reason for her injury was the huge amount of enthusiastic love he felt for her, propelling him into her arms. Sounds to me like he rightfully considers her a mighty fine aunt.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

How did this story even end up in the media in the first place? How did the media even know what was said during the trial? I have this ~theory that for the past 25+ years, corporations, insurance companies, "the powers that be", lobbyists have been on a crusade to turn the general public against lawsuits, for them to see the common person who files them as being "greedy" and just wanting a payout from the honest corporation. So you will see these stories in the media that allege that so and so is suing this company for some bogus reason, and it will be a very one-sided presentation of the case. And it's worked! I've never seen a story about a lawsuit in the media where there is overwhelmingly support for it. It's gotten to the point where people will say they hate lawsuits...period. What? So if you were injured in an accident and needed to sue the insurance company to get money for medical bills, you wouldn't? Of course you would, but "lawsuit" has become such a dirty word that you act like doing that make you a greedy pig. I really think the way these lawsuit stories are presented is deliberate---not just to get the media ratings---but done in a way to villify the person filing them, and I think giant corporations are behind it.

 

[Lilibet]

How did this story even end up in the media in the first place? How did the media even know what was said during the trial? I have this ~theory that for the past 25+ years, corporations, insurance companies, "the powers that be", lobbyists have been on a crusade to turn the general public against lawsuits, for them to see the common person who files them as being "greedy" and just wanting a payout from the honest corporation. So you will see these stories in the media that allege that so and so is suing this company for some bogus reason, and it will be a very one-sided presentation of the case. And it's worked! I've never seen a story about a lawsuit in the media where there is overwhelmingly support for it. It's gotten to the point where people will say they hate lawsuits...period. What? So if you were injured in an accident and needed to sue the insurance company to get money for medical bills, you wouldn't? Of course you would, but "lawsuit" has become such a dirty word that you act like doing that make you a greedy pig. I really think the way these lawsuit stories are presented is deliberate---not just to get the media ratings---but done in a way to villify the person filing them, and I think giant corporations are behind it.

BBM

I agree completely. Does anyone stop to think about the power of companies who buy commercials so that MSM can survive? In many cases, these companies are promoting their own interests at our expense. Of course MSM can be persuaded to slant a story to the benefit of advertisers! I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all, but this seems very clear, as this reporter explains in an interview:

And, you know, I guess - I mean, reporters are constantly - I mean, I get calls every day and emails from different, you know, PR firms that are trying to get me to write about their causes. And, you know, a story in a newspaper is much more valuable than a press release. And once there's a story in the newspaper then the industry group can point to the story as proof of their case.
And so, you know, we are definitely targets of the whole, you know, the whole influence machine and I think we need to be careful to not be used.

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/13/276448190/a-closer-look-at-how-corporations-influence-congress

JMO, MOO

 

[jjenny]

If she has to hold a plate at a party then she is going to the wrong parties. With butlers serving there is no plate holding. jmo

I think it was her own plate she couldn't hold. I presume butlers are going around with big plates of appetizers but people take some onto their own plate.

 

[jjenny]

This needs to be said: Aunt was suing the HO insurance. Not the child.

She sued the child. He was the one named in the lawsuit. Insurance wasn't. So it wouldn't be accurate to say aunt was suing the insurance. Now, if she won her lawsuit, insurance presumably would pay and not the child personally, assuming the amount was within the insurance.

 

[jjenny]

You obviously have never lived in or visited a 3rd floor walkup apt in NYC. Walkup means 3 flights of stairs, and in older buildings each flight can be a pretty major undertaking, especially when one is hauling groceries or packages/boxes, or going up and down with loads of laundry, even with 2 good arms.

While I haven't lived in 3rd floor walkup apt in NYC, why would her wrist prevent her from going up the stairs? If she had trouble going up with laundry or groceries, why wasn't it phrased that way?

 

[LinasK]

This needs to be said: Aunt was suing the HO insurance. Not the child.

Then why not list the parents instead? Why drag a small child into court unnecessarily??? Obviously it was an accident. Now this little boy has the additional trauma of having to get up on the stand and be grilled, and he's missing out on school while he does that.

 

[jjenny]

Then why not list the parents instead? Why drag a small child into court unnecessarily??? Obviously it was an accident. Now this little boy has the additional trauma of having to get up on the stand and be grilled, and he's missing out on school while he does that.

She has to sue the child because he is the one who cased the injury. If she were to win, then I presume insurance would have to pay (assuming the amount is within insurance limits).

 

[LinasK]

She has to sue the child because he is the one who cased the injury. If she were to win, then I presume insurance would have to pay (assuming the amount is within insurance limits).

Why not hold his parents responsible for his behavior since he was only 8, and it was their house?? I mean surely an 8 year old can't possibly work off over $100,000? Garnish any future earnings potential??? Sorry, I have zero sympathy for this woman.:snooty: I just see her as greedy. Glad she lost. 8-year-olds get enthusiastic. He meant her no harm- he was excited to see her.

 

[jjenny]

Why not hold his parents responsible for his behavior since he was only 8, and it was their house?? I mean surely an 8 year old can't possibly work off over $100,000? Garnish any future earnings potential??? Sorry, I have zero sympathy for this woman.:snooty: I just see her as greedy. Glad she lost. 8-year-olds get enthusiastic. He meant her no harm- he was excited to see her.

She has to sue the child because he is the one who caused the injury. Child is covered under homewoners insurance taken out by the parents. If parents have homeowners insurance child wouldn't have to pay anything out of pocket. That's how the laws work in CT. Seems simple enough.

 

[LinasK]

She has to sue the child because he is the one who caused the injury. Child is covered under homewoners insurance taken out by the parents. If parents have homeowners insurance child wouldn't have to pay anything out of pocket. That's how the laws work in CT. Seems simple enough.

Fair enough. I still think it's crazy to drag an 8-year-old into court over this. And this woman clearly needs better medical insurance to cover her own injuries rather than relying on someone else's homeowner's insurance. And why didn't she receive any O.T. for her wrist to help her with holding plates and other A.D.L.'s (Activities of Daily Life)???

 

[Lilibet]

Fair enough. I still think it's crazy to drag an 8-year-old into court over this. And this woman clearly needs better medical insurance to cover her own injuries rather than relying on someone else's homeowner's insurance. And why didn't she receive any O.T. for her wrist to help her with holding plates and other A.D.L.'s (Activities of Daily Life)???

Medical insurance won't cover if it's an accident covered by someone's HO insurance. It isn't a matter of getting "better" medical insurance. You might want to check your own coverage. It's just how it works. Have you read the posts on the subject? No one "dragged" an eight year old to court, except the necessity for a lawsuit to get legitimate medical expenses paid. Why are you using such inflammatory language when both the aunt and the child have made clear what happened?

It takes a long time for a wrist to recover from two surgeries, if it ever does. You don't know that she didn't receive occupational therapy. Some injuries do not allow for a return to full functioning. My daughter who is in her forties broke her shoulder in a fall and two years later, she will never again have full range of motion, despite surgery and much therapy. It is what it is. But she was entitled to workers comp just as this woman is entitled to coverage either by HO or her own insurance now that she lost the suit.

Anger at this woman is orchestrated by the media. I'm saddened to see WSers fall for it. JMO

 

[Lilibet]

While I haven't lived in 3rd floor walkup apt in NYC, why would her wrist prevent her from going up the stairs? If she had trouble going up with laundry or groceries, why wasn't it phrased that way?

Maybe you can walk up or down three flights of stairs carrying your purse and/or other items without holding onto the railing, but many of us can't. It's really a balance and safety issue. The possibility of falling going up or down the stairs without holding on is high. We don't know whether she had trouble with laundry or groceries because we don't have access to what was actually said in court and the media may have left that out. But it should be obvious that having only one usuable arm in that situation creates difficulties carrying anything.
JMO

 

[LinasK]

Maybe you can walk up or down three flights of stairs carrying your purse and/or other items without holding onto the railing, but many of us can't. It's really a balance and safety issue. The possibility of falling going up or down the stairs without holding on is high. We don't know whether she had trouble with laundry or groceries because we don't have access to what was actually said in court and the media may have left that out. But it should be obvious that having only one usuable arm in that situation creates difficulties carrying anything.
JMO

The way it was worded certainly does sound frivolous, because just to walk doesn't require the use of your arms, nor is holding a plate of hor d'oevres a necessity in life!! :boohoo::boohoo::boohoo:And yes I do sound angry because I see this woman as greedy.

 

[Lilibet]

Then why not list the parents instead? Why drag a small child into court unnecessarily??? Obviously it was an accident. Now this little boy has the additional trauma of having to get up on the stand and be grilled, and he's missing out on school while he does that.

Why not hold his parents responsible for his behavior since he was only 8, and it was their house?? I mean surely an 8 year old can't possibly work off over $100,000? Garnish any future earnings potential??? Sorry, I have zero sympathy for this woman.:snooty: I just see her as greedy. Glad she lost. 8-year-olds get enthusiastic. He meant her no harm- he was excited to see her.

BBM

Did you not read any of the very informed posts explaining how accident insurance claims have to be handled? The individual in the household who caused the accidental injury is the one who is sued, not the policy holder. It's a shame the child had to appear in court, I agree. But this is how it has to be done in order to get insurance benefits. No one was going to garnish the child's future wages! Now that she has lost the case her own insurance will pay. That's how it works. This is the reality of insurance. There is no villain here, except the media.

It's not about greed. It's about a woman who has legitimate medical expenses, probably long term. Is she supposed to go bankrupt paying them herself when insurance is available? Do you honestly think she wanted to sue her nephew? Come on. Are you aware that she and her nephew have clarified what happened? And now she has to suffer attacks on social media (including WS) orchestrated by the media? Is there no compassion for her? I'm appalled and disappointed.
JMO

 

[Hope4More]

The way it was worded certainly does sound frivolous, because just to walk doesn't require the use of your arms, nor is holding a plate of hor d'oevres a necessity in life!! :boohoo::boohoo::boohoo:And yes I do sound angry because I see this woman as greedy.

I've been around WS long enough to know you have a heart of gold. : .

So that you are (and others) are so down on the aunt kinda fascinates me, all the while I'm disagreeing with you...

 

[Lilibet]

The way it was worded certainly does sound frivolous, because just to walk doesn't require the use of your arms, nor is holding a plate of hor d'oevres a necessity in life!! :boohoo::boohoo::boohoo:And yes I do sound angry because I see this woman as greedy.

I guess it's time for me to exit. Choosing to accept the media spin and be angry and downright nasty toward an injured fellow human IMO makes reasoning impossible. I choose to educate myself, look carefully at all angles and show empathy and understanding for all parties involved whenever possible. In this case, it's not that hard, now that more facts have been revealed. And it's a good way to live.
JMO

 

[Hope4More]

Fair enough. I still think it's crazy to drag an 8-year-old into court over this. And this woman clearly needs better medical insurance to cover her own injuries rather than relying on someone else's homeowner's insurance. And why didn't she receive any O.T. for her wrist to help her with holding plates and other A.D.L.'s (Activities of Daily Life)???

Reality is we've heard close to nothing about the facts of this case, including the actual testimony by Evil Aunt. You're making lots of assumptions about what was and wasn't testified to, as well as about the aunt's motivation.

 

[Lilibet]

I've been around WS long enough to know you have a heart of gold. : .

So that you are (and others) are so down on the aunt kinda fascinates me, all the while I'm disagreeing with you...

Me too, Hope. I'm gobsmacked by this and clearly distressed.

 

[Hope4More]

I guess it's time for me to exit. Choosing to accept the media spin and be angry and downright nasty toward an injured fellow human IMO makes reasoning impossible. I choose to educate myself, look carefully at all angles and show empathy and understanding for all parties involved whenever possible. In this case, it's not that hard, now that more facts have been revealed. And it's a good way to live.
JMO

Why not stay and try to understand why these differences of opinion?