US national sport redux

[Gob]

Bridgeport: A Connecticut jury sided against 54-year-old New Yorker, Jennifer Connell, after she sued her now 12-year old nephew for an incident several years ago in which he hugged her a little too hard, knocked her to the floor — and broke her wrist.

The then-eight-year-old was pretty excited to see his aunt at his birthday party on March 18, 2011, according to the Connecticut Post. He had just gotten a two-wheel bike that day and was riding it around the home, the newspaper reported. He was so excited that he ran up to his aunt as soon as he saw her.

"Aunty Jen, Aunty Jen," he exclaimed.

That's when things got a little dangerous.


"All of a sudden he was there in the air, I had to catch him, and we tumbled onto the ground," Ms Connell testified, according to the Connecticut Post. "I remember him shouting, 'Aunty Jen, I love you,' and there he was flying at me."

All 22 kilos of him.

The jury, according to the Connecticut Post, didn't take more than 25 minutes to make their decision on Tuesday.

Her attorney William Beckert told the New York Daily News that his client's nephew Sean Tarala "should have known better", "We do not take great pleasure in bringing a minor to court," Mr Beckert said. "She is not here enjoying a moment of this."

"We have rules for children," the lawyer continued. "He was not careful. He was unsafe." Ms Connell said she didn't say much to the child at the party — opting to avoid upsetting him on his big day.

But since then, life has been hard, she testified in a Bridgeport court on Friday. Manhattan, where Ms Connell lives, is crowded, she testified. And her third-floor walk-up on the Upper East Side poses challenges for her now.

It gets worse.

"I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d'oeuvre plate," Ms Connell said, according to the news account.

Her nephew, 12-year-old Sean Tarala, sat in court looking a little confused, the paper reported. He was accompanied by his father, Michael Tarala; his mother, Lisa Tarala, died last year.
Connell sought $US127,000 ($175,000) from Sean for the harm she said she has suffered since he greeted her a little too enthusiastically.

"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," the lawsuit states, according to the Connecticut Post.

Attorneys for Ms Connell and Mr Tarala did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/aunty-fails ... z3oUYkzCAv

[Long Run]

No doubt there is a homeonwer's insurance company on the hook to pay any damages.

[MajGenl.Meade]

IIRC that's a big no on the insurance. Now if the kid dropped a bowling ball through the priceless coffee table, that's probably covered.

[Guinevere]

I'm disgusted. She is a total loser and doesn't deserve the title "Auntie."

My boyz run and jump at me every time they see me. Still, at almost 10 and 12. I'd do anything for that to continue forever.

[oldr_n_wsr]

No doubt there is a homeonwer's insurance company on the hook to pay any damages.

I read an article that said that was precisely what she was trying to get, the insurance company to cover her hospital/doctor bills but they were refusing. I foget the details and can't find it now.

[Long Run]

IIRC that's a big no on the insurance. Now if the kid dropped a bowling ball through the priceless coffee table, that's probably covered.

??? My HO policy has always covered "personal liability" E.g., from Travelers website:

Liability insurance
Protect yourself with liability insurance

Liability insurance is about financial protection - for you and your family. The personal liability coverage within your homeowners policy provides coverage for bodily injury and property damage sustained by others for which you or your family members are legally responsible. For example, someone falls down your stairs, or your child accidentally throws a ball through a neighbor's window, breaking an expensive Chinese vase - you may be held responsible for the damages caused. Under personal liability coverage, the insurance company defends you if you are sued, and pays damages to the injured person up to the limit of liability.

Most homeowners policies provide a minimum of $100,000 in personal liability coverage, meaning the insurance company will pay up to the amount in total to injured persons per accident. If you feel you need more protection, you can increase this amount up to $500,000. You can also purchase a personal liability umbrella policy if you think you need more than $500,000 in liability coverage.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Found the article

....
"From the start, this was a case was about one thing: getting medical bills paid by homeowner’s insurance. Our client was never looking for money from her nephew or his family. It was about the insurance industry and being forced to sue to get medical bills paid. She suffered a horrific injury," Jainchill and Beckert said in their statement.

"Prior to the trial, the insurance company offered her one dollar. Unfortunately, due to Connecticut law, the homeowner’s insurance company could not be identified as the defendant.
....

https://gma.yahoo.com/woman-loses-suit- ... ories.html

[Sue U]

Yes, this lawsuit would be for payment out of the homeowners coverage, and if she had gotten an award from the jury she most likely would have had to pay back either the health plan that had covered her medical bills, or the medical providers who treated her if she had no health insurance (or if coverage had been denied or excluded due to a "third party liability" provision). The law in many if not all jurisdictions is that you have to sue the negligent party, not the insurance company, even though that's who's really responsible to pay. In my jurisdiction, you can't even mention the existence of insurance coverage during the trial, or you'll get tossed on a mistrial.

[Big RR]

Sue--would it be covered under homeowners insurance or was it an intentional act excluded from coverage?

And FWIW, this seems to be a pretty big payout requested unless she had to undergo surgery (perhaps she did).

[MajGenl.Meade]

My memory's not so far gone that I don't remember the liability clauses of HO policies. What I thought was that this wasn't a case where legal liability was likely to be established.

But on reflection, the child didn't knock the lady over intentionally and it surely was "accidental". If tossing a ball through a window is covered, why not injuring dear Auntie Sponger?

Sue - that's weird law where you are. Long Run's is similar to Ohio. As soon as the homeowner gets the court papers, they go to the insurance company which will either settle or defend the case. The thing that's riled homeowners in my experience is that the insurer settles too easily and doesn't fight - almost everyone seems to want the suing party to be beaten in court!

(And anyone who has only $100K of Liability on an HO should be given a good shaking)

[Sue U]

Sue--would it be covered under homeowners insurance or was it an intentional act excluded from coverage?

And FWIW, this seems to be a pretty big payout requested unless she had to undergo surgery (perhaps she did).

This injury would not be subject to an intentional act exclusion under the homeowners policy; while there was intent to jump into auntie's arms or whatever, there was no intent to injure her, only (arguably) negligence on the part of a child. Although 8 is usually considered to be the "age of reason" in knowing right from wrong behavior, the kid would probably still have to be judged according to the standard of "a reasonable 8-year-old" (as if there were such a thing).

As for the amount requested in damages, it appears the aunt did have to undergo surgery, and $175k is not an unreasonable figure at all for a wrist fracture with surgery, if medical expense damages are included. (I have seen wrist fracture cases come in anywhere between $20k and $125k exclusive of medical costs, depending on how severe the break and the residual complications). Moreover, there is no requirement that a jury finding negligence and causation must award the amount requested; that's a matter solely within the jury's discretion. Here in NJ, you're not even allowed to make a dollar request to the jury for that very reason. Further, some states and the federal courts have a dollar-figure threshold for jurisdiction, and it may be that they had to plead a certain dollar amount in damages just to meet the jurisdictional requirement. And pleading an amount too low may result in a whole 'nother set of complications for your case.

Sue - that's weird law where you are. Long Run's is similar to Ohio. As soon as the homeowner gets the court papers, they go to the insurance company which will either settle or defend the case,

Yes, the HO insurer will provide a defense, but you can't sue the insurer (except for bad faith or 1st party coverage) as its liability is merely contractual; it is the negligence of the insured that must be determined at trial, not the responsibility of the insurance company to indemnify the policyholder.

(And anyone who has only $100K of Liability on an HO should be given a good shaking)

I agree completely. You should by the max plus a $1million umbrella policy. An attorney's got to get paid, you know.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I see the distinction - thanks. And yep, attornies gots to be paids and so does the imshorance agent

[Lord Jim]

The jury deliberated for about 20 minutes Tuesday before ruling that Connell is entitled to no money, the Post reported.

I think the jury was too lenient...

They should also have ruled that she was entitled to pay all court costs, entitled to reimburse her nephew's family for their legal expenses, and entitled to a swift kick in the ass...

[Joe Guy]

Yeah, and maybe give her the death penalty to ensure she won't be suing anymore children, which sounds a lot like child abuse to me.

The poor kid is probably mentally damaged for life and may have lost the ability to jump on women.

[Lord Jim]

Yeah, and maybe give her the death penalty

That might be a little extreme...(though I'm willing to keep an open mind on the subject...)

But paying for a week long all expense paid trip to Disney World for Sean and his father, (I'd include his mother too, but of course she died last year...) seems more than reasonable to me...

[Long Run]

fwiw, I have seen a couple of these cases before . . . and it is often the homeowner who encourages the injured relative/friend to sue, knowing they have insurance to pay the damages. But then, the injured party is, you know, injured.

20 minute jury deliberation for a defense verdict, after a week long trial, indicates that auntie was not significantly injured, contrary to her attorney's public statements.

[Sue U]

20 minute jury deliberation for a defense verdict, after a week long trial, indicates that auntie was not significantly injured, contrary to her attorney's public statements.

That's entirely false, and serves only to feed the "frivolous lawsuit" screamers. A fracture with surgery is a significant injury by any standard, and if there were medical expenses claimed that is an economic injury in itself. As I'm sure you might recall from law school, there are four necessary elements of proof in a tort action: duty, breach of duty, proximate cause and damages. The most likely explanation for the verdict in this case is not that the plaintiff was not injured (she obviously was, both physically and economically), but that either there was no duty to be imposed on an 8-year-old to act with due care for the safety of others, or that the 8-year-old acted reasonably and therefore breached no duty (i.e., was not negligent).

[Long Run]

Fair points, Sue. Clearly the jury did not think an 8-year old jumping into his aunt's arms was negligent behavior. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine a jury spending only 20-25 minutes if they believed the aunt had been seriously injured. I do agree with aunt about one thing -- a fairly ordinary case turned into a media circus because of the internet and social media.

[Guinevere]

It may very well be an ordinary case, but that isn't how it was presented. How often is it that an 8-year-old is the defendant, in an action brought by a family member? That alone makes it extraordinary to me.

[Big RR]

I have to agree with your assessment of the likely reason for the verdict; she might also have been contributorily negligent ("run over here and give auntie a big kiss") and in some jurisdictions (I don't know the Connecticut rule) this can spell the end of damages depending on her degree of culpability.