Aunt Unsuccessfully Sues 12-Year-Old Nephew for $127K After Hug Broke Wrist

[crazy canuck]

Not sure why this is an "exploit".  As a matter of law in that jurisdiction what occurred was a tortious act.  If it was not no damages would have been awarded.  The Aunt suffered a compensable loss. If a stranger caused the damage no one would think twice about her being compensated.  Why should she go uncompensated to save the insurance company some money for a loss which is insured?

[DontSayBanana]

Translation: This is another example of sensationalist and irresponsible reporting, not an example of how crazy the aunt might be...

Its all good to try to exploit our shitty legal system to wrongfully take $127,000 from an insurance company.

Treating the aunt's broken hand has also apparently involved two, maybe three surgeries, so the $127,000 doesn't sound that exorbitant then.

[grumbler]

Translation: This is another example of sensationalist and irresponsible reporting, not an example of how crazy the aunt might be...

Its all good to try to exploit our shitty legal system to wrongfully take $127,000 from an insurance company.

Treating the aunt's broken hand has also apparently involved two, maybe three surgeries, so the $127,000 doesn't sound that exorbitant then.

Nonsense.  $127,000 is the cost of two full days in a hospital (plus, maybe, the ambulance ride there). No way three surgeries could be as expensive as that.

[Habbaku]

Not sure why this is an "exploit".  As a matter of law in that jurisdiction what occurred was a tortious act.  If it was not no damages would have been awarded.  The Aunt suffered a compensable loss. If a stranger caused the damage no one would think twice about her being compensated.  Why should she go uncompensated to save the insurance company some money for a loss which is insured?

Just want to chime in that this post is appreciated.  Thanks for the perspective.

[grumbler]

Not sure why this is an "exploit".  As a matter of law in that jurisdiction what occurred was a tortious act.  If it was not no damages would have been awarded.  The Aunt suffered a compensable loss. If a stranger caused the damage no one would think twice about her being compensated.  Why should she go uncompensated to save the insurance company some money for a loss which is insured?

Why sue the kid, though?  Why not sue the homeowner for allowing this to happen?

[Valmy]

Not sure why this is an "exploit".  As a matter of law in that jurisdiction what occurred was a tortious act.  If it was not no damages would have been awarded.  The Aunt suffered a compensable loss. If a stranger caused the damage no one would think twice about her being compensated.  Why should she go uncompensated to save the insurance company some money for a loss which is insured?

Wait damages were awarded? The thread title said 'unsuccessfully sues...'

[alfred russel]

Not sure why this is an "exploit".  As a matter of law in that jurisdiction what occurred was a tortious act.  If it was not no damages would have been awarded.  The Aunt suffered a compensable loss. If a stranger caused the damage no one would think twice about her being compensated.  Why should she go uncompensated to save the insurance company some money for a loss which is insured?

Because she was pursuing $127,000. As you know, insurance companies are not very sympathetic defendants (even if not explicitly named in this case), while women with broken bones are. Juries in the US are well known for being both unpredictable and overgenerous.

[crazy canuck]

Not sure why this is an "exploit".  As a matter of law in that jurisdiction what occurred was a tortious act.  If it was not no damages would have been awarded.  The Aunt suffered a compensable loss. If a stranger caused the damage no one would think twice about her being compensated.  Why should she go uncompensated to save the insurance company some money for a loss which is insured?

Why sue the kid, though?  Why not sue the homeowner for allowing this to happen?

Because the Plaintiff always sues the person who committed the tortious act.  Trying to prove the parents also had some liability is more difficult.  That would only become necessary if suing the child would result in a dry judgment.  That was not the case here because the child was covered under the terms of the policy.

[crazy canuck]

Not sure why this is an "exploit".  As a matter of law in that jurisdiction what occurred was a tortious act.  If it was not no damages would have been awarded.  The Aunt suffered a compensable loss. If a stranger caused the damage no one would think twice about her being compensated.  Why should she go uncompensated to save the insurance company some money for a loss which is insured?

Wait damages were awarded? The thread title said 'unsuccessfully sues...'

Assuming the suit was successful it would not have been unreasonable to bring the suit.

[crazy canuck]

Not sure why this is an "exploit".  As a matter of law in that jurisdiction what occurred was a tortious act.  If it was not no damages would have been awarded.  The Aunt suffered a compensable loss. If a stranger caused the damage no one would think twice about her being compensated.  Why should she go uncompensated to save the insurance company some money for a loss which is insured?

Because she was pursuing $127,000. As you know, insurance companies are not very sympathetic defendants (even if not explicitly named in this case), while women with broken bones are. Juries in the US are well known for being both unpredictable and overgenerous.

Ok but why is it an exploit.

Use another example.  A father and son are in a single car accident.  The son suffers injuries which will prevent him from being able to work for the rest of his life.  The father's insurance will compensate the son for all of that loss.  Should the son sue the father to collect those damages?  Or is that an "exploit".

[DontSayBanana]

Translation: This is another example of sensationalist and irresponsible reporting, not an example of how crazy the aunt might be...

Its all good to try to exploit our shitty legal system to wrongfully take $127,000 from an insurance company.

Treating the aunt's broken hand has also apparently involved two, maybe three surgeries, so the $127,000 doesn't sound that exorbitant then.

Nonsense.  $127,000 is the cost of two full days in a hospital (plus, maybe, the ambulance ride there). No way three surgeries could be as expensive as that.

And the narcotic painkillers?  And the pre-surgery and follow-up visits with the surgeon?  The last single surgery I had was fairly routine and still had me going to the surgeon's office repeatedly for almost half a year.

[alfred russel]

Ok but why is it an exploit.

Use another example.  A father and son are in a single car accident.  The son suffers injuries which will prevent him from being able to work for the rest of his life.  The father's insurance will compensate the son for all of that loss.  Should the son sue the father to collect those damages?  Or is that an "exploit".

Yes the son should sue, but he is also exploiting the father's insurance.

[crazy canuck]

Perhaps I would understand better if I knew what you meant by the word "exploiting".  Should the father pay out of his own pocket or should he benefit from the insurance for which he paid premiums and which covers this type of liability? 

[alfred russel]

Perhaps I would understand better if I knew what you meant by the word "exploiting".  Should the father pay out of his own pocket or should he benefit from the insurance for which he paid premiums and which covers this type of liability?

exploiting: making full use of and deriving benefit from (a resource).

In your scenario, I think the father should benefit from the insurance policy he paid for.

[crazy canuck]

Ah, I thought you meant the more common definition of "to use a situation so that you get benefit from it, even if it is wrong or unfair to do this"