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

[Sonya610]

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?

What is up with the obsession over being rich or having money???

It was a very petty example, money has NOTHING to do with it. She could have said she can't paint her own fingernails and use that as an example of hardship, that would be equally trivial and people would still criticize it even though it had NOTHING to do with money.

 

[Hope4More]

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).

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.

 

[Donjeta]

I don't think it was reported if it was expensive hors d'oeuvres in a rich people's party or not.

I think the point is that if you have a slight difficulty once in a while when you go to a party it seems like less of a hardship than, say, if you're unable to go to work or do your household chores or have daily troubles carrying anything. Regardless of income level.

 

[Hope4More]

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.

I imagine they could relate. My take away was she was saying that the injury was significant enough that she couldn't even hold onto a wee light plate - - that plate in question which seems to rile folks up for being mentioned.

Who knows whether or not the jury sympathized with her or not, because the media pack, so delighted with an easy target to maul, probably didn't even look into that, lest the answer undercut their bad-aunt meme.

Reality is the aunt had to prove her poor nephew was reckless in some way, and no reasonable jury would have made that finding, no matter what they thought of the aunt and the plate she can no longer hold.

 

[Hope4More]

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.

See above. She DID say that, in her reference to 3rd floor walkups (as in , the building has no elevator).

 

[eileenhawkeye]

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.

Good point. I don't understand the comments mocking her for saying she can't walk up three flights of stairs. It makes complete sense to me. Her building likely does not have an elevator. So is she suppose to move? How is not being able to carry groceries and laundry up/down the stairs not a legimate concern?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I imagine they could relate. My take away was she was saying that the injury was significant enough that she couldn't even hold onto a wee light plate - - that plate in question which seems to rile folks up for being mentioned.

Who knows whether or not the jury sympathized with her or not, because the media pack, so delighted with an easy target to maul, probably didn't even look into that, lest the answer undercut their bad-aunt meme.

Reality is the aunt had to prove her poor nephew was reckless in some way, and no reasonable jury would have made that finding, no matter what they thought of the aunt and the plate she can no longer hold.

Yes, this story was perfectly sensationalized in order to garner maximum outrage. Mean aunt sues adorable little boy for a hug because she can't hold a plate of hors d'oevures! Come on. I don't understand why people continue to react w/ vitirol at these type of stories. They always turn out to be a hoax, to be one-sided, or just where the truth is completely different than what is presented.

 

[ohreally]

Just peeking in here, but I do wonder if this lawsuit was brought about so that she could claim against her own insurance. Many years ago Barbara Mandrell had to sue the driver of the car that hit her (the teen died) in order to make a claim against her own insurance company. She was not allowed to publicly talk about the lawsuit (she had her lawyer call the teens parents to say they would never take a penny from the lawsuits, but it had to be done) and had to put up with a lot of disgust fom people believing she was being greedy. This happened in Tennessee. I wonder if NY has similar laws, and if this could be why the lawsuit was filed.

 

[Hope4More]

Good point. I don't understand the comments mocking her for saying she can't walk up three flights of stairs. It makes complete sense to me. Her building likely does not have an elevator. So is she suppose to move? How is not being able to carry groceries and laundry up/down the stairs not a legimate concern?

I know something about NYC apartments because my grandmother lived in one for over 60 years (Greenwich Village, rent controlled) , as does my BF from college, decades later, and others I have known and visited.

Walk up apartments, by definition, mean just that. No elevators. No anything but stairs. Plus- walkups almost always mean no doormen, which makes the apts second rate, actually, no where near as desirable as those with elevators and doormen to help sclepp one's daily and weekly essentials.

 

[LinasK]

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.

Because hor d'oevres are a luxury food to the common person, and not important to the grand scheme of life. Who cares if she can't have hor d'oevres because she can't hold a plate of them? Use your other hand, or your lap, or a table. Like the other posters have said, if she'd said she couldn't dress herself, I'd have alot more sympathy.

 

[LinasK]

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.

Then she had other options- Occupational Therapy for her broken wrist, use her other hand, ask someone to get food for her, or refrain from attending fancy parties until her wrist healed.

 

[LinasK]

Good point. I don't understand the comments mocking her for saying she can't walk up three flights of stairs. It makes complete sense to me. Her building likely does not have an elevator. So is she suppose to move? How is not being able to carry groceries and laundry up/down the stairs not a legimate concern?

She never expressed said that she could no longer carry groceries or laundry up/down stairs. Only that she lived up 3 flights of stairs and couldn't hold a plate of hor d'oevres. The jury isn't mind readers. Groceries and laundry are both far more relevant than hor d'oevres.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

She never expressed said that she could no longer carry groceries or laundry up/down stairs. Only that she lived up 3 flights of stairs and couldn't hold a plate of hor d'oevres. The jury isn't mind readers. Groceries and laundry are both far more relevant than hor d'oevres.

Um, how do you know she never said that? You've read the entire transcript of her testimony? It is likely that she did go into detail about why going up three flights would be difficult---after all, she was questioned by attorneys who would want her to expland on what she is saying---yet the media chose to leave out that part in their stories about her.

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

Honestly, I think she gave, what some would consider, ineffective reasons for her suit because she was trying to lose. If the HO insurance is not considered responsible her insurance picks them up. No increased HO premiums for her family. Unfortunately, the suit had to happen.

I couldn't pay all my medical bills out of pocket for a crisis I had last November. It didn't cost anywhere near the bills the aunt as incurred. She was forced by the insurance game, believe me, I used to work in the business. It's not pretty and you wouldn't believe how many times families are forced to sue one another.

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

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

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

** Puzzled about atty's stmt - her ins co was only willing to fork over $1 to help pay for treatment. What?
If referring to her health ins, of course, co is not responsible for lost wages, reduced enjoyment of life activities, etc.
If ref'ing to Seans' parents' ins co, the why say her ins co? Why only $1? Wish we had more info.

This is how the insurance industry works. Health insurance is not provided to its members with a *no fault* clause. They will always ask: "how, when, and where" your accident occurred to determine who is liable for the ensuing expenses.

If you've suffered a work related injury, workman's comp coverage would apply. An injury on private property is the responsibility of the owner, provided there are no state laws prohibiting, i.e. you can't be sued if someone falls on your property in winter provided you performed shoveling and deicing.

Our laws require coverage like auto & HO insurance because health insurance is not responsible for every hazard we face in everyday life.

 

[Lilibet]

I'm thankful to be coming in at the end. I probably should keep quiet, but what I've read is very upsetting. This case really illustrates the incredible power of the media to spin stories so that people on social media (including WS) go on the attack. Do people not realize their emotions are being manipulated by the media? Do people really think they are getting the full story? Do they really want to be jerked around by the media and abandon their critical thinking and reasoning ability? Do they like being nasty and sarcastic?

My husband has a knee-jerk reaction to law suits. He started venting when he read about this one. I reminded him that to get her medical bills paid, the aunt's insurance is probably insisting that she sue her nephew. Only if she lost would they pay. Why should they pay if it can be proven it's the nephew's fault? His parent's HO insurance would be liable. That's how it works. That's why you are asked at the doctor or in ER if your ailment is due to an accident...to sort out liability. It's not personal. It's business. I hope no one here who severely criticized the aunt ever has an accident at a friend's or relative's home (or vice versa) and experiences this fact of life...and gets attacked publicly for it. JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

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.

 

[Sonya610]

Because hor d'oevres are a luxury food to the common person, and not important to the grand scheme of life.

Well, not exactly a luxury food, just finger food served at parties.

A paper plate with cheeze-whiz on crackers served along side a 40 oz. could be considered hor d'oevres if someone wanted to call them that.

 

[Elley Mae]

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