I thought my family was nuts.


BRIDGEPORT, Conn. -- A woman sued her 12-year-old nephew in Connecticut for $127,000 for injuries she says she suffered from his exuberant greeting at his birthday party four years ago. She lost.

The Connecticut Post reports that New York City resident Jennifer Connell said the Westport boy acted unreasonably when he leaped into her arms at his eighth-birthday party.

She says he caused her to fall to the ground and break her wrist. She is asking a six-member Superior Court jury to find the boy liable.

A listed phone number couldn't be found for the youngster's father. The boy's mother died last year, the Connecticut Post reported.

CBS New York reports that Connell testified before a jury that when the child jumped, she tumbled to the ground as she tried to catch him.

"All of a sudden he was there in the air, I had to catch him, and we tumbled to the ground," Connell told jurors.

"I remember him shouting, 'Auntie Jen I love you,' and there he was flying at me."

The 54-year-old Connell testified she loves her nephew but thinks he should be held accountable.

According to the Connecticut Post, Connell testified that she has a hard time walking up to her third-floor walkup apartment in Manhattan and her social life has been affected as well.

"I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d'oeuvre plate," she said.

Connell admitted in court that she did not complain about the injury at the time, but did mention the injury made life tough over the next two years.

According to the Connecticut Post, the lawsuit states: "The injuries, losses and harms to the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the minor defendant in that a reasonable eight year old under those circumstances would know or should have known that a forceful greeting such as the one delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff could cause the harms and losses suffered by the plaintiff."

Woman sued nephew, said his "forceful" birthday greeting injured her - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/woman-sues-nephew-says-his-forceful-birthday-greeting-injured-her/)

^^^^^^^
Short of a few obviously and inarguably evil things like slavery, child abuse, genocide et al., that is honestly some of the worst **** I've heard in my entire life.

That should be an Onion article.

It's curious that this is a national headline. Has anyone taken a step back to consider why or how this is a national headline? Perhaps it is being made popular by certain special interest groups who want to cut off your access to the courts to seek compensation for injuries suffered? Perhaps make those courts seem to not be legitimate forums to address your injuries? That might help the insurnace companies write bigger dividend checks.

What is mentioned in not a single article I've read is whether there was insurance coverage here. Of course the author was carefult to include a quote from the Plaintiff complaining about the pain she experienced holding a hors d'oeuvre plate--and if your reaction was "She doesn't need the money, that greedy bitch holds hors d'oeuvre plates!" then the writer nailed it.

But without really hearing what the evidence is or knowing thing 1 about the Plaintiff's actual injuries, financial situation, what the insurance situation is here or even the relationships between the parties, you folks have already made up your mind over what is obviously a pretty one-sided presentation. For all I know, the jury got this one right... but I would never be able to grade their performance with just the above information.

If your nephew tackles you in a forceful hug, leading to the need for extensive surgery to repair the damage and chronic pain, and the homeowner's insurance won't pay because their adjuster thinks right or wrong, they can get a defense verdict, and your only recourse is to hire a lawyer who is going to take 40% of what a jury says you deserve, as well as expert fees, probably in the $10K to $15K range, probably still not leaving you whole on the actual damages you have suffered, maybe then you'll have a different perspective on how the tort system is already rigged in the favor of the insurance companies.

Some additional context:

'Aunt' says lawsuit against 8-year-old was insurance case - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/us/aunt-nephew-lawsuit/)

She was going after the insurance company, but you don't sue them literally. She lost. Jury would not hold the then-8-year-old boy responsible. The verdict was unanimous and rendered in about 40 minutes.

Given that she, herself, was/is employed at the time, why her own medical insurance didn't cover any injuries from a fall that could have happened anywhere. I'd be interested in at least some info on that aspect of it.

For me, I have a tough time assigning blame/negligence to an eight-year-old in the situation as described.

Her lawsuit was filed before the boy's mother's death.

One has to sue the actor, not the insurance company of the actor,if seeking compensation via the actor's coverage. It's how it is done, irrespective of car accident, injury in a home caused by another, or animal bites, etc.

I wonder ... would folks, including the jury, have felt differently had it been a young middle school b-baller who tried to scoop up his relative in a big hug but lost his grip on her and the similar injuries resulted. It's still an accident caused by a child. Does a few years make a major difference if in my example the child is 12. What if he is a stout 14 year old linebacker? A 13 year old girl's volleyball captain?

http://www.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/272/561/2/S2725612/slug/l/superman-superman-aaron-smolinski-phyllis-thaxer-glenn-ford-ma-phyllis-thaxer-und-pa-kent-glenn-ford-r-die-den-kleinen-1.jpg

One has to sue the actor, not the insurance company of the actor,if seeking compensation via the actor's coverage. It's how it is done, irrespective of car accident, injury in a home caused by another, or animal bites, etc.

I wonder ... would folks, including the jury, have felt differently had it been a young middle school b-baller who tried to scoop up his relative in a big hug but lost his grip on her and the similar injuries resulted. It's still an accident caused by a child. Does a few years make a major difference if in my example the child is 12. What if he is a stout 14 year old linebacker? A 13 year old girl's volleyball captain?

I think you've captured the essence, the simplicity, and the complexity of the entire reasonable man standard.

Not saying anything, apparently, about the injury until several days (?) later doesn't help, particularly if it turns out she had a broken wrist as a result. I remember my mom falling on a skateboard at her brother's house when I was about 14, and when she fell, she landed on her left wrist and she knew it was broken instantly. That gives special meaning to the notion of never "standing on your rights."

More broadly, as a matter of testimony, I can't imagine an attorney worth his or her salt wouldn't have told the woman not to offer anything in a deposition or testimony anything that sounds like "I couldn't hold my hors d'ouerve plate." No matter the context, no matter the situation, no matter how innocuous the intent, that sounds....bad.

More broadly, as a matter of testimony, I can't imagine an attorney worth his or her salt wouldn't have told the woman not to offer anything in a deposition or testimony anything that sounds like "I couldn't hold my hors d'ouerve plate." No matter the context, no matter the situation, no matter how innocuous the intent, that sounds....bad.

In a case like this, the Defendant doesn't always have the ability to make an offer. That's up to the adjuster. The Defendant can make a demand on the policy that it pay and that triggers some things (at least here it does), but it's always the adjuster that makes that call.

There was just so much about the OP which misleads, especially including the hors d'oeuvre comment, which tells me that this story is being promoted by organizations which ultimately want to further limit your access to the courts.

I don't disagree with you on that plate comment, but you know what ... you can educate someone, you can even practice and prepare someone, but until the day comes they let counsel play Jeff Dunham with clients and witnesses, one is never truly sure what is going to be said by the person under oath.