What a grade A cunt
http://www.people.com/article/aunt-sues-nephew-jumping-arms-birthday-party
QuoteAunt Unsuccessfully Attempts to Sue 12-Year-Old Nephew for $127K After Hug Broke Her Wrist: 'He Was Flying at Me'
By Alex Heigl
@alex_heigl 10/13/2015 AT 04:10 PM EDT
Think twice before your next hug.
A 54-year-old human resources manager from New York City unsuccessfully attempted to sue her 12-year-old nephew for jumping into her arms at a 2011 birthday party – an act of exuberance that caused her to fall to the ground and break her wrist.
On Tuesday, a Bridgeport, Connecticut, jury rejected Jennifer Connell's claim to $127,000 for injuries she says she sustained during the incident, according to the Connecticut Post.
Connell claimed her nephew, Sean Tarala of Bridgeport, leapt into her arms when she arrived at his 8th birthday party in 2011.
"All of a sudden he was there in the air, I had to catch him and we tumbled onto the ground," Connell testified, according to the Connecticut Post. "I remember him shouting, 'Auntie Jen I love you,' and there he was flying at me."
The young boy, whose mother died last year, was in court with his father on Friday.
Connell testified that her nephew had always been "very loving, [and] sensitive" to her, but her suit contended that "a reasonable 8 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."
Connell further testified to the damage her injury has inflicted on her wrist. "I live in Manhattan in a third-floor walkup, so it has been very difficult. And we all know how crowded it is in Manhattan."
She added, "I was at a party recently and it was difficult to hold my hors d'oeuvres plate."
A six-member Superior Court jury found that Tarala was not liable for his actions, according to CTPost.com.
Connell did not offer further comment after hearing the verdict, and requested marshals to escort her to her car through the group of reporters outside the courthouse. She ignored all requests for comment.
QuoteShe added, "I was at a party recently and it was difficult to hold my hors d'oeuvres plate."
Ok that is a hilariously un-ironically delivered first world problem. Point to you worst Aunty evah.
This is what happens when you do away with corporal punishment. Little monsters!
Quote from: garbon on October 13, 2015, 06:23:42 PM
This is what happens when you do away with corporal punishment. Little monsters!
What and have his mother or father sue him because they broke their wrist whilst canning him. :rolleyes:
:P
QuoteThe young boy, whose mother died last year, was in court with his father on Friday.
A wild guess that mom had a life insurance policy with son as a beneficiary.
Quote from: mongers on October 13, 2015, 06:32:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 13, 2015, 06:23:42 PM
This is what happens when you do away with corporal punishment. Little monsters!
What and have his mother or father sue him because they broke their wrist whilst canning him. :rolleyes:
:P
More like he should have had proper discipline to teach him that you shouldn't be leaping into anyone's arms when you are 12. :contract:
Quote from: garbon on October 13, 2015, 06:55:06 PM
More like he should have had proper discipline to teach him that you shouldn't be leaping into anyone's arms when you are 12. :contract:
He was eight :contract:
Quote from: Jacob on October 13, 2015, 06:57:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 13, 2015, 06:55:06 PM
More like he should have had proper discipline to teach him that you shouldn't be leaping into anyone's arms when you are 12. :contract:
He was eight :contract:
Jacob. :w00t:
Welcome back. :cheers:
Quote from: mongers on October 13, 2015, 07:01:42 PM
Jacob. :w00t:
Welcome back. :cheers:
:hug:
It's the excitement of the Canadian election.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2015, 06:34:00 PM
QuoteThe young boy, whose mother died last year, was in court with his father on Friday.
A wild guess that mom had a life insurance policy with son as a beneficiary.
Actually, that sounds entirely believable.
Quote from: Jacob on October 13, 2015, 06:57:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 13, 2015, 06:55:06 PM
More like he should have had proper discipline to teach him that you shouldn't be leaping into anyone's arms when you are 12. :contract:
He was eight :contract:
Nice to see you again! :hug:
Quote from: Jacob on October 13, 2015, 06:57:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 13, 2015, 06:55:06 PM
More like he should have had proper discipline to teach him that you shouldn't be leaping into anyone's arms when you are 12. :contract:
He was eight :contract:
:hmm: Who the fuck are you?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 13, 2015, 07:23:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2015, 06:34:00 PM
QuoteThe young boy, whose mother died last year, was in court with his father on Friday.
A wild guess that mom had a life insurance policy with son as a beneficiary.
Actually, that sounds entirely believable.
That sounds like something that a homeowners' policy would pay for anyway, whether you have money or not.
Quote
Connell further testified to the damage her injury has inflicted on her wrist. "I live in Manhattan in a third-floor walkup, so it has been very difficult. And we all know how crowded it is in Manhattan."
WTF, does she walk up the 3 flights of stairs on her hands? And how is Manhattan being crowded relevant?
TORT REFORM!
Quote from: DGuller on October 13, 2015, 07:49:59 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 13, 2015, 07:23:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2015, 06:34:00 PM
QuoteThe young boy, whose mother died last year, was in court with his father on Friday.
A wild guess that mom had a life insurance policy with son as a beneficiary.
Actually, that sounds entirely believable.
That sounds like something that a homeowners' policy would pay for anyway, whether you have money or not.
Yeah, that was my first thought. An attempt to collect on the general liability policy without costing the family a dime - except maybe for increased premiums.
QuoteA 54-year-old human resources manager from New York City unsuccessfully attempted to sue her 12-year-old nephew for jumping into her arms at a 2011 birthday party ...
This sullies the name of HR Managers everywhere. :D
Quote from: Malthus on October 14, 2015, 09:36:13 AM
QuoteA 54-year-old human resources manager from New York City unsuccessfully attempted to sue her 12-year-old nephew for jumping into her arms at a 2011 birthday party ...
This sullies the name of HR Managers everywhere. :D
Not really. :P
Quote from: Malthus on October 14, 2015, 09:36:13 AM
QuoteA 54-year-old human resources manager from New York City unsuccessfully attempted to sue her 12-year-old nephew for jumping into her arms at a 2011 birthday party ...
This sullies the name of HR Managers everywhere. :D
Your comment kinda reminds me of a "true" story that Woody Hayes's wife told at a fundraiser. She recounted how she was being interviewed in her house as part of a newspaper story on Woody's preparations for The Game. The reporter asked whether Woody thought about anything that week other than football. She replied that he never talked football around her, he was always talking about sex. Woody, who was in the room, tried to interject that this was untrue, but she shushed him, saying "Be quiet, dear. I'm improving your image."
:lol:
That's a great story
Quote from: Berkut on October 14, 2015, 09:38:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 14, 2015, 09:36:13 AM
QuoteA 54-year-old human resources manager from New York City unsuccessfully attempted to sue her 12-year-old nephew for jumping into her arms at a 2011 birthday party ...
This sullies the name of HR Managers everywhere. :D
Not really. :P
;)
Quote from: grumbler on October 14, 2015, 09:46:45 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 14, 2015, 09:36:13 AM
QuoteA 54-year-old human resources manager from New York City unsuccessfully attempted to sue her 12-year-old nephew for jumping into her arms at a 2011 birthday party ...
This sullies the name of HR Managers everywhere. :D
Your comment kinda reminds me of a "true" story that Woody Hayes's wife told at a fundraiser. She recounted how she was being interviewed in her house as part of a newspaper story on Woody's preparations for The Game. The reporter asked whether Woody thought about anything that week other than football. She replied that he never talked football around her, he was always talking about sex. Woody, who was in the room, tried to interject that this was untrue, but she shushed him, saying "Be quiet, dear. I'm improving your image."
:lol:
That's a hoot.
Geek.com imagines this incident looked like this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geek.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F10%2Fhemanhug-590x330.jpg&hash=06f2eb658bceae520add31fb308d09f1c85e72dd)
Quote from: DGuller on October 13, 2015, 07:49:59 PM
That sounds like something that a homeowners' policy would pay for anyway, whether you have money or not.
As a kid, my brother was at my aunt and uncle's house in a hammock, and the hammock broke and he fell "breaking his back". In quotes because while he broke something and it sounds awful it was really not serious.
The adults (my father, aunt and uncle) realized it was a way to get money out of the homeowner's policy, and so my father sued them for damages. Everyone stayed on good terms--we kept vacationing together etc.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 14, 2015, 02:36:48 PM
As a kid, my brother was at my aunt and uncle's house in a hammock, and the hammock broke and he fell "breaking his back". In quotes because while he broke something and it sounds awful it was really not serious.
The adults (my father, aunt and uncle) realized it was a way to get money out of the homeowner's policy, and so my father sued them for damages. Everyone stayed on good terms--we kept vacationing together etc.
Their premiums go up?
Heard the "aha" moment just a little bit ago. Yes, there was homeowner's insurance involved. Both the aunt's insurance and the other insurance said the other had to pay, and apparently in Connecticut, the homeowner's insurance couldn't be named as a defendant- she had to sue the covered party to get the judge to say, no, this isn't falling on them, so your insurance is going to have to pay up.
Translation: This is another example of sensationalist and irresponsible reporting, not an example of how crazy the aunt might be...
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2015, 08:30:32 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 15, 2015, 08:40:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2015, 08:30:32 AM
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.
:mad:
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?
Quote from: alfred russel on October 15, 2015, 08:40:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2015, 08:30:32 AM
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2015, 09:28:12 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 15, 2015, 08:40:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2015, 08:30:32 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 09:18:21 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 09:18:21 AM
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 09:18:21 AM
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...'
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 09:18:21 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2015, 10:30:52 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 09:18:21 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2015, 10:46:21 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 09:18:21 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 15, 2015, 10:47:27 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 09:18:21 AM
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".
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2015, 10:19:21 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2015, 09:28:12 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 15, 2015, 08:40:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2015, 08:30:32 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 11:05:33 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 12:14:58 PM
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.
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"
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 12:27:00 PM
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"
In the first situation, I would say that is fair. But not in your hypothetical.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 15, 2015, 12:31:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 12:27:00 PM
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"
In the first situation, I would say that is fair. But not in your hypothetical.
In your view, what is the different between the two fact patterns - ie what makes it unfair to claim against insurance for which premiums were paid in the first but not the second situation?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 12:59:01 PM
In your view, what is the different between the two fact patterns - ie what makes it unfair to claim against insurance for which premiums were paid in the first but not the second situation?
In the first case, the plaintiff is pursuing an award that is grossly disproportionate to the damages.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 15, 2015, 03:47:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 12:59:01 PM
In your view, what is the different between the two fact patterns - ie what makes it unfair to claim against insurance for which premiums were paid in the first but not the second situation?
In the first case, the plaintiff is pursuing an award that is grossly disproportionate to the damages.
The article seems rather short on the sort of facts one would need to make that determination. But assuming your legal judgment is correct, if that is what a court would award why would it be unfair or wrong (the definition you are now using) to make the claim?
Quote from: garbon on October 13, 2015, 06:23:42 PM
This is what happens when you do away with corporal punishment. Little monsters!
We don't know how big she is.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 06:31:27 PM
The article seems rather short on the sort of facts one would need to make that determination. But assuming your legal judgment is correct, if that is what a court would award why would it be unfair or wrong (the definition you are now using) to make the claim?
It isn't a legal judgment, it is an ethical one.
Jury trials are notorious for jackpot justice. You file a big enough claim, you've bought a lottery ticket. Only it isn't against a pool of money of other lottery buyers, it is against some other party's assets that didn't sign up to play. And that other party has to spend a bunch of time and money to defend themselves.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 15, 2015, 06:46:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 06:31:27 PM
The article seems rather short on the sort of facts one would need to make that determination. But assuming your legal judgment is correct, if that is what a court would award why would it be unfair or wrong (the definition you are now using) to make the claim?
It isn't a legal judgment, it is an ethical one.
Jury trials are notorious for jackpot justice. You file a big enough claim, you've bought a lottery ticket. Only it isn't against a pool of money of other lottery buyers, it is against some other party's assets that didn't sign up to play. And that other party has to spend a bunch of time and money to defend themselves.
So it seems your real beef is with the way tort awards are made in the US. What does that have to do with this woman?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 12:14:58 PM
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?
I'm kinda confused (which isn't hard when it comes to the law), but what does the father have to do with this? That's why I asked why the son (a minor) was being sued rather than the father. If the son is a minor and incapable of committing a tortious (is that a word) act, why isn't the father, the one responsible for the son's actions, and the policy-holder, being sued? It just seems weird and the jury clearly found it so. Having just completed jury duty and having seen one of these "sue the one with the policy" cases from the other side, I just found it kinda strange.
In a related vein, Ralph Nader, famous Lebanese-American, has opened a Tort Museum in his hometown in Connecticut.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 15, 2015, 06:46:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 06:31:27 PM
The article seems rather short on the sort of facts one would need to make that determination. But assuming your legal judgment is correct, if that is what a court would award why would it be unfair or wrong (the definition you are now using) to make the claim?
It isn't a legal judgment, it is an ethical one.
Jury trials are notorious for jackpot justice. You file a big enough claim, you've bought a lottery ticket. Only it isn't against a pool of money of other lottery buyers, it is against some other party's assets that didn't sign up to play. And that other party has to spend a bunch of time and money to defend themselves.
You don't think the insurance company signed up to play when they started accepting premium payments?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 06:49:51 PM
So it seems your real beef is with the way tort awards are made in the US. What does that have to do with this woman?
Just because the law enables immoral conduct doesn't make the immoral behavior acceptable.
Do you think the insurance company didn't consider the applicable legal liabilities when setting the the premium payments?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 09:02:40 PM
Do you think the insurance company didn't consider the applicable legal liabilities when setting the the premium payments?
So what? Because insurance company implicitly priced in all kinds of fraud into premiums means it's okay to commit that fraud?
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2015, 07:03:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 12:14:58 PM
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?
I'm kinda confused (which isn't hard when it comes to the law), but what does the father have to do with this? That's why I asked why the son (a minor) was being sued rather than the father. If the son is a minor and incapable of committing a tortious (is that a word) act, why isn't the father, the one responsible for the son's actions, and the policy-holder, being sued? It just seems weird and the jury clearly found it so. Having just completed jury duty and having seen one of these "sue the one with the policy" cases from the other side, I just found it kinda strange.
It's hard to know for sure from the facts in the OP. It appears the son was the defendant and the father was not involved at all. As a matter of general principle it doesn't matter who owns the policy - ie who pays the premium. What matters is who is defined as an insured. Here it looks like one of the people insured under the policy was the son. Dependants are normally insured under general liability home insurance policies. If that is what happened there would be no need to claim against the father.
Sometimes what occurs is the insurance limit is not sufficient to cover the damages and so the parents are also sued to get at their other assets. But the case is different against them.
Quote from: DGuller on October 15, 2015, 09:05:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 09:02:40 PM
Do you think the insurance company didn't consider the applicable legal liabilities when setting the the premium payments?
So what? Because insurance company implicitly priced in all kinds of fraud into premiums means it's okay to commit that fraud?
Is there any evidence this claim was fraudulent?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 09:16:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 15, 2015, 09:05:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 09:02:40 PM
Do you think the insurance company didn't consider the applicable legal liabilities when setting the the premium payments?
So what? Because insurance company implicitly priced in all kinds of fraud into premiums means it's okay to commit that fraud?
Is there any evidence this claim was fraudulent?
The claim was not fraudulent, unless the family conspired to break the aunt's wrist so that she could sue them. The lawsuit which gave rise to the claim, which was an attempt to win the jury lottery, may very well have been ethically questionable in the way AR described. It may not be illegal, so it would not be fraudulent, but it would still be a wrong thing to do. The fact that insurance premium over time adjusts to cover such wrongful lawsuits does not make it any more right.
If the claim is not fraudulent then how can it be unfair or wrong to bring the claim. Do plaintiffs really need to self censor claims the law would otherwise permit?
Like AR your real complaint is that you perceive the American justice system hands out lottery prizes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 09:32:38 PM
If the claim is not fraudulent then how can it be unfair or wrong to bring the claim.
As I already said, things that are legal can still be morally in the wrong. I'm not sure why I even have to point this out, again.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 09:32:38 PM
If the claim is not fraudulent then how can it be unfair or wrong to bring the claim. Do plaintiffs really need to self censor claims the law would otherwise permit?
Like AR your real complaint is that you perceive the American justice system hands out lottery prizes.
CC, if there was a legal system that gave out lottery prizes, don't you think it would be immoral to pursue them? Eg, what would you say about the man suing his neighbor in Thailand for something minor and winning a massive award?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 09:32:38 PM
Like AR your real complaint is that you perceive the American justice system hands out lottery prizes.
Not really, or at least that's not the entirety of it. The legal system is a very inefficient mechanism. There is big variance in results given the same merit of the case, and there are big frictional costs. Someone who abuses those shortcomings for their gain, by for example filing a meritless case and hoping for variance to go their way, or by hoping to extract a settlement from the other party so that they could save on their legal costs, is an immoral person.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 09:15:40 PM
It's hard to know for sure from the facts in the OP. It appears the son was the defendant and the father was not involved at all. As a matter of general principle it doesn't matter who owns the policy - ie who pays the premium. What matters is who is defined as an insured. Here it looks like one of the people insured under the policy was the son. Dependants are normally insured under general liability home insurance policies. If that is what happened there would be no need to claim against the father.
The problem with this is that, from the jury's point of view, there was no insurance involved. And AFAIK, parents are liable for any damages resulting from tort committed by their minor children, rather than the child themselves being liable. Aside from any ethical considerations, as a practical matter it's not like the typical 8 year old has any assets you could seize to cover damages.
Yes, the jury should not be considering whether their is a collection issue. They should only be applying the law in the context if their fact finding. Which is why I find it surprising anyone would argue it is immoral for a plaintiff to bring a claim. DG and AF are arguing the state of the US legal system is such that it is immoral to use it. An astounding claim.
If there was a corporation involved, $127K would be the settlement offer to avoid facing the jury lottery. As Grumbler suggests, the really outrageous monetary demands in this story are from the medical industry.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 15, 2015, 09:41:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 09:32:38 PM
If the claim is not fraudulent then how can it be unfair or wrong to bring the claim. Do plaintiffs really need to self censor claims the law would otherwise permit?
Like AR your real complaint is that you perceive the American justice system hands out lottery prizes.
CC, if there was a legal system that gave out lottery prizes, don't you think it would be immoral to pursue them? Eg, what would you say about the man suing his neighbor in Thailand for something minor and winning a massive award?
I guess the issue is this - is the "immoral" factor the quantum of the award sought, or the fact that an aunt is suing a 12 year old for a total accident?
If it is the quantum, I guess the question is whether this really represents the costs of her care and other reasonable damages, or an attempt to "milk" a totally minor issue into obtainig a big award.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 11:16:32 PM
DG and AF are arguing the state of the US legal system is such that it is immoral to use it. An astounding claim.
You are misrepresenting what I am saying, yet again. I'm saying that it is immoral to engage in legal actions that you know are meritless, but that may nevertheless prove fruitful if the legal system's flaws play to your advantage.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2015, 11:16:32 PM
DG and AF are arguing the state of the US legal system is such that it is immoral to use it.
That definitely isn't what I'm saying. In fact, you even presented me a hypothetical earlier in this thread and I endorsed using it.