-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Aunt loses lawsuit against 8-year-old nephew who jumped into her arms
- Thread starter flkraven
- Start date
- Status
ZombiePlatypus
Member
I could be wrong here cause I'm not really familiar with the details of the case, but didn't the McDonald's Coffee scenario involve unnecessarily hot coffee though? To the point that was way beyond needed, and totally unreasonable? If I recall correctly, the plaintiff was disfigured for life.
She suffered 3rd degree burns, she actually asked McDonalds to simply pay for her medical bills but they refused to help so she had to sue if I'm not mistaken.
But I might be reading his post wrong, I don't believe he was saying that the McDonalds coffee case an unjust lawsuit, I believe he's comparing it to the current case. I think he's saying we don't have enough details to say this lawsuit is bullshit? But I don't see what could possibly be expanded on that would make this lawsuit look any better?
Sorry, wasn't clear! That's my point, the case taken against McDonald's was absolutely meritorious and afaik her damages were reduced for contributory negligence. But the impression that that case created in the public consciousness was that, in essence, a woman got a huge payout for spilling coffee on herself. Which is really unfair, because as you said once you see the horrific burns she received it's very clear that she deserved compensation.
This happens with legal cases in particular, where the media might seize on a particular fact of the case and present it shorn of legal and factual context. Judges are people too, they're very unlikely to want to be known as a person handing out outrageous payments for trivial litigation. That's why it's a good idea in these cases to often withhold judgment until more details about the situation emerge. Which is not to say that the woman in this case is free from blame (she might well be a greedy opportunist for all I know) but rather that it is almost always the best policy to withhold judgment in these cases.
glassgannon
Banned
She should have sued him for domestic battery on grounds of gender and then run a twitter campaign..s/
Easy win
Easy win
Off the top of my head there's a few things:
- What damage was actually suffered by the aunt? Is it long-term, is it debilitating, does it require a large amount of costly treatment? The fact that the hors d'ouevres (seriously, how do you spell this thing? sometimes in fancy restaurants I pronounce it like whore doves just to see how the server reacts) thing is presumably taken from a much larger testimony. It probably isn't the only injury she's suffered. It may have just been a point she was making to illustrate how it affects her day to day life.
- The actual nature of the tackle/hug. We simply don't know what it was like. It could have been very strong. I'm not too up on American tort law, but if it's anything like UK negligence law, there isn't a requirement that the kid was doing something maliciously and I don't think anyone's alleged that he was. The simple fact was that an injury was done. Please don't take this as an endorsement of this case, but if you can imagine a situation where the kid accidentally knocked the aunt down a flight of stairs, you might be more amenable to the idea that while the kid is morally blameless the aunt is entitled to some compensation.
- Cases taken on behalf of insurance companies. Again, not too familiar with American law on this subject but there was a post earlier in the thread that seemed knowledgeable.
Miles Quaritch
Member
So my question now is why did she wait two years and why did it take two years to reach the courts.
It's not like she's suing the state. She tried to sue the kid. Why would that take two years to reach the courts and have a judge decide?
That's two years of lawyer fees.
MilkyJoe
Member
If she had won I would have rallied for the disbanding of the US and all her Citizens cast into the pit of Carkoon
He had not started his paper round.
FunkyDealer
Banned
Who needs The Onion when we've got America? I'm really pleased she lost the case.
We don't know it took her 2 years to file, all we know is she filed it within 2 years of the accident because if she had waited longer than that, she would have been barred from bringing the suit because the statute of limitations would have expired. As to why it took her however long to file, we don't know that. One can presume she attempted to have the home owners insurance pay for her injuries without filing suit, rather than suing them the next day.
As to your next question, things don't move quickly like they do in tv legal shows. 2-3 years is average for a case to reach trial for some judges, and down right speedy for other judges. You have paper discovery to be served and responded to, depositions to schedule and hold, and motions to brief and argue. All of these things take time and are affected by the schedules of both the attorneys involved and/or the parties.
Next, you have the court's own docket. Judges aren't constantly trying cases, at least not where I practice. There are breaks in there trial dockets, and even then their time is split between a civil and criminal docket, with criminal cases taking precedent over civil cases.
Finally, even if you have a trial date, there may be multiple cases set to try during the same civil docket. Depending upon when your case was filed relative to those other cases, you may be first on the docket or you may be further down. If you're not first up on the docket, then you wait for the other case(s) in front of you to try. Depending upon how long they take, you may get to try your case or you may get bumped to the next docket if those cases take too long. The wheels of justice move very, very slowly.
Finally, just because a case takes however long to reach trial doesn't mean there are two or more years of constant legal fees. Attorneys charging by the hour can only bill for the actual time spent working on a case. As I hopefully explained articulately enough, above, there is a lot of waiting and down time involved with individual cases.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Suing an eight year old makes no sense, you'd sue the parents/guardians since they're the ones legally responsible aren't they?
No, that's not how it works in every jurisdiction I am familiar with. Everyone, minor or adult, is responsible for their own actions. Parents can, however, sometimes be held liable for their kid's actions under a theory of negligent entrustment. Here's the wikipedia link for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_entrustment
fallengorn
Bitches love smiley faces
More people should definitely watch Hot Coffee. It'll hopefully open their eyes and maybe give pause to knee-jerk reactions when they see headlines like this.
I just skimmed the thread but has this article been posted?
'Aunt' says lawsuit against 8-year-old was insurance case
TheRagnCajun
Member
Tort law requires that:
- You prove damages
- You prove fault on behalf of the defendant
- You prove that the fault lead to the damages
Proving fault requries that the person, if unintentional, still behaved neglignetly or with a lack of care one would reasonably expect, and could have forseen how his/her actions would result in damages. The crux of the issue here is: what duty of care do you reasonably expect from an eight year old? Could the eight year old have forseen the injury?
EdwardTivrusky
Member
I don't think that particular article has been posted but most of us were aware the case was brought because of America's fucked up medical & insurance system.
Don't forget becoming hated across the entire nation after the story came out.
Lol did spell check do that, or is that the joke?
ha, I dont know how to spell it, so I just went with it.
Sölf;181614840 said:
If she had won I would have rallied for the disbanding of the US and all her Citizens cast into the pit of Carkoon
He had not started his paper round.
Glad to see that you are all thrilled that the insurance company won the case and won't have to pay for this woman's medical bills.
Here's hoping that none of you ever get seriously injured and have to face off against an insurance company in court. Given what's been said in this thread, I suppose all of the quoted posters will happily pay for their own medical bills out of pocket and tell the insurance company not to worry about it.
He'll probably be quite OK with it. If anything, he'll be disappointed she lost because it means the insurance isn't paying out to cover the medical costs.
Civil lawsuits can take YEARS to get to trial. The "right to a speedy trial" only concerns criminal cases.
No. Depending on the jurisdiction you will file against whoever is responsible. In this case the eight-year-old was responsible and the party covered by insurance. So, as has been stated many times in both threads, the aunt had to file suit against the boy in order to trigger the insurance provision. If the aunt won, the insurance would have paid the claim. Since the aunt lost, the insurance company is off scott free.
Given the sheer number of posts in both threads crucifying the woman over hypotheticals, even after the insurance issue was pointed out (multiple times) it's safe to say that most people aren't aware and are just drive-by posting.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Yes, as already covered by someone else hours before your reply. My point is that just suing the kid didn't make sense, it really being an insurance case makes a lot more sense.
Doesn't matter, a child is a child. If it meant being in debt and having to take years to pay it off or lose my house rather than sue a child who didn't do anything morally wrong, than I would gladly do it.
You are right that it sucks how evil insurance people are and how they only care about money. But unless the family was in on the lawsuit (as one of the posters stated this HAS happened before only with the parents wanting the lawsuit to help the person) then she still will be ostracized. Sucky situation but yeah, this wasn't a situation to do this. She was obviously gonna lose and have to pay the medical bills, yet she still tried any way and probably just lost the love of her family AND she still has to pay for the medical bill. She had a choice and chose wrong.
MHWilliams
Member
uncredited male
Member
A little surprised so many didn't see the possible insurance angle.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
I would give up my life for my nephew, so thanks for trying to villainize me.
Damn, so it's very likely the nephew didn't even mind she was suing. Basically a legally complicated way of her getting something from the insurance company.
excelsiorlef
Member
Yeah because women who are victims of domestic abuse have it so easy.
TheSlySoul
Member
$1 for a broken wrist? What a shitty insurance company. Does not change my opinion though since she was going to raise her nephew's rates when he got older if she won.
excelsiorlef
Member
What? But that's what insurance is for
MHWilliams
Member
The child is largely unconnected to the legal situation outside of being named in the suit for insurance purposes.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
And that is unconnected to the quoter giving me and a bunch of other posters a giant "Fuck you".
Wow, that's horrific and really a commentary on the insurance/medical situation in this country. And the media spun it to make her look like some sort of monster. I'm sure she's been getting a lot of flak for this. The poor woman, honestly.
True villain was insurance companies all along. What a fucked system.
MHWilliams
Member
Because of scintillating statements based on the facts like:
I also don't understand why pointing out that you may have missed aspects of the situation, like so:
Is a "fuck you". Please illuminate me.
TheSlySoul
Member
She was suing his insurance to pay for her injury since her own insurance sucked. At least that is what it sounds like to me. $127k makes more since with surgery though. Surgery in general in a money sink.
Cheesehead9099
Neo Member
Dehumanizing declaration of love?
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
You can't sue the insurer for refusing to pay out, you have to sue the person directly, win a verdict and have the insurance policy kick in to cover the medical bills.
Thus, she sued her nephew. That's how it works.
TheSlySoul
Member
Right, this logic is really the crime.
If she won, the nephew would be paying more money in the future to insurance.
The situation sucks, but she was responsible for what happened to her. She chose to try to catch 50 pounds of youth.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
She took the advice of counsel. Last time I checked "bullshit" was not one of the verdicts the jury can return.
The kid doesn't have insurance, the homeowners do.
It should be.
AtomskEater
Member
I mean regardless of recentish developments it's still a pretty funny quote.
ElRenoRaven
Member
Good. Now the kid and his dad can completely write this disgusting woman out of their lives and live happily ever after.
This explanation actually makes less sense. Why is she trying to get medical bills covered by her brother-in-law's homeowner's insurance, by suing her nephew? Does she not have medical insurance? Surely the nephew doesn't have homeowner's insurance, and doesn't own the residence where this occurred. Does he?
I mean, I'm sympathetic if this turns out to be some Kafka-esque insurance nightmare, but it doesn't make sense the way it's being described.
I mean, I'm sympathetic if this turns out to be some Kafka-esque insurance nightmare, but it doesn't make sense the way it's being described.
I actually feel bad for her since she was pretty much forced to sue her nephew because homeowners insurance doesn't want to pay anything unless they're forced to.
And now, since nobody ever reads more than the headline and assumes she was just trying to moneygrab, the whole country thinks she's some sort of demon, making fun of her appetizer hand.
And now, since nobody ever reads more than the headline and assumes she was just trying to moneygrab, the whole country thinks she's some sort of demon, making fun of her appetizer hand.
Except they were already aware the only reason she sued the kid was due to Connecticut law to make the insurance company pay her medical bills.
She sued the child because he was at fault and the law in that state required it. It was purposely to make the insurance company cover her medical bills.
Hell, we are seeing that here on GAF. mre tried to set things straight and was ignored mostly. I tried and was ignored. Another poster posted the cnn interview where she says it was all about the insurance and nothing to do with her nephew at all and was ignored by some still.
MHWilliams
Member
You did not read the quotes I posted or what mre and others said. From here with corroboration with a third party expert.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked