What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Woman sues nephew for $127K after she fell at his 8th-birthday pa (1 Viewer)

baymen

Footballguy
BRIDGEPORT — A New York woman wants a jury to hold her then-8-year-old nephew accountable for his youthful exuberance during his birthday party.

Jennifer Connell claims the boy, Sean Tarala of Westport, acted unreasonable when he leaped into her arms, causing her to fall on the ground and break her wrist four years ago. This week Connell is asking a six-member Superior Court jury to find the boy liable for his actions.

She is seeking $127,000 from the boy, who she described as always being “very loving, sensitive,” toward her. The boy is the only defendant in the case.

In court Friday, the boy, now 12 years old, appeared confused as he sat with his father, Michael Tarala, in the Main Street courtroom. The boy’s mother, Lisa Tarala, died last year.

On the witness stand before Judge Edward Stodolink, the 54-year-old Connell, a human resources manager in Manhattan, testified she loves Sean but believes he should be held accountable for her injury.

On March 18, 2011, Connell, who has no children of her own, arrived at the Tarala home at 25 Woods Grove Road to attend Sean’s birthday party.

The boy had gotten his first two-wheeler for his birthday, and was joyfully riding the bright-red bike around and around the home, according to testimony.

But when he spotted Connell, he dropped the new bicycle on the ground, exclaiming, “Auntie Jen, Auntie Jen.”

“All of a sudden he was there in the air, I had to catch him and we tumbled onto the ground,” Connell testified of her encounter with the 50-pound boy. “I remember him shouting, ‘Auntie Jen I love you,’ and there he was flying at me.”

Although hurt, Connell said, she didn’t complain to the boy at the time.

“It was his birthday party and I didn’t want to upset him,” she told the jury.

But, Connell continued, her life was turned upside down as a result of the injury.

“I live in Manhattan in a third-floor walk-up so it has been very difficult,” she said. “And we all know how crowded it is in Manhattan.”

And then there is the damage the injury has done to Connell’s social life.

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

“The injuries, losses and harms to the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the minor defendant in that a reasonable eight years 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 claims.

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/8-year-old-boy-on-trial-for-exuberance-6566757.php?

One year after the kid's mother dies, she sues him 4 years after her injury.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How does a broken wrist affect your ability to walk up the steps to an apartment? She can't hold onto the other handrail?

 
I'll never, ever understand law. How does a judge not deliver a summary judgment in favor of the kid? How does this suit make it as far as it got?

Since when could minors be personally sued? That's a state-by-state thing ... seriously? Seriously?

Law is just incorrect way too often. Come on.

 
"And then there is the damage the injury has done to Connells social life.

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

:lmao: Oh the humanity!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll never, ever understand law. How does a judge not deliver a summary judgment in favor of the kid? How does this suit make it as far as it got?

Since when could minors be personally sued? That's a state-by-state thing ... seriously? Seriously?

Law is just incorrect way too often. Come on.
If your main exposure to the civil justice system is through special interest "news of the weird" stories like this one, rather than through knowledge of the hundreds of thousands of civil matters that are efficiently processed through our courts every week, it makes sense that it would be confusing, difficult to understand.

 
“I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d’oeuvre plate,” she said.
This is from the Onion, right?
Think of that statement and what it means. If it's hard to hold a small plastic plate, she's clearly still experiencing a lot of symptoms. She probably can't carry a laundry basket, a stack of plates from dishwasher to cabinet, a vibrator... It sounds like a big issue.

 
“I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d’oeuvre plate,” she said.
This is from the Onion, right?
Think of that statement and what it means. If it's hard to hold a small plastic plate, she's clearly still experiencing a lot of symptoms. She probably can't carry a laundry basket, a stack of plates from dishwasher to cabinet, a vibrator... It sounds like a big issue.
We should do the humane thing and put her down.

 
Is there video of this incident? If so get it in the "kids get owned" thread stat.

 
“I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d’oeuvre plate,” she said.
This is from the Onion, right?
Think of that statement and what it means. If it's hard to hold a small plastic plate, she's clearly still experiencing a lot of symptoms. She probably can't carry a laundry basket, a stack of plates from dishwasher to cabinet, a vibrator... It sounds like a big issue.
We should do the humane thing and put her down.
That might be a touch strong of a reaction

 
I'll never, ever understand law. How does a judge not deliver a summary judgment in favor of the kid? How does this suit make it as far as it got?

Since when could minors be personally sued? That's a state-by-state thing ... seriously? Seriously?

Law is just incorrect way too often. Come on.
If your main exposure to the civil justice system is through special interest "news of the weird" stories like this one, rather than through knowledge of the hundreds of thousands of civil matters that are efficiently processed through our courts every week, it makes sense that it would be confusing, difficult to understand.
Well, I understand that these are outliers.

Is it true or untrue that the judge is not really free to simply dismiss the case without granting the plaintiff a hearing? I realize that's probably another state-by-state thing. I mean, what happened if she tried suing a infant? A dog? A potted plant?

I often hear that "anyone can sue for anything" ... but is that an absolute? Can I sue a fire hydrant and get heard in front of a judge so long as I'm willing and able to pay court fees? Can I file 100 such suits daily? I know there are limits to this kind of thing. Just where is that "line of ridiculousness" that allows a judge to say "nuh uh"?

 
I'll never, ever understand law. How does a judge not deliver a summary judgment in favor of the kid? How does this suit make it as far as it got?

Since when could minors be personally sued? That's a state-by-state thing ... seriously? Seriously?

Law is just incorrect way too often. Come on.
If your main exposure to the civil justice system is through special interest "news of the weird" stories like this one, rather than through knowledge of the hundreds of thousands of civil matters that are efficiently processed through our courts every week, it makes sense that it would be confusing, difficult to understand.
Well, I understand that these are outliers.

Is it true or untrue that the judge is not really free to simply dismiss the case without granting the plaintiff a hearing? I realize that's probably another state-by-state thing. I mean, what happened if she tried suing a infant? A dog? A potted plant?

I often hear that "anyone can sue for anything" ... but is that an absolute? Can I sue a fire hydrant and get heard in front of a judge so long as I'm willing and able to pay court fees? Can I file 100 such suits daily? I know there are limits to this kind of thing. Just where is that "line of ridiculousness" that allows a judge to say "nuh uh"?
I don't think I understand how this relates to the current case, but you're going to have a hard time getting service of process on a fire hydrant or a dog.
 
She's almost certainly trying to get paid by the homeowner's insurance. Not the kid.
True but she should still be forced to spend a night with Bill Cosby.

:lmao: at her broken wrist being life changing. Grow a set you stupid hor.
Bob....

what if it was your RIGHT wrist that was broken. Think about it.
I guess I simply can't imagine an injury that severe.
You amphibious?

 
I'll never, ever understand law. How does a judge not deliver a summary judgment in favor of the kid? How does this suit make it as far as it got?

Since when could minors be personally sued? That's a state-by-state thing ... seriously? Seriously?

Law is just incorrect way too often. Come on.
If your main exposure to the civil justice system is through special interest "news of the weird" stories like this one, rather than through knowledge of the hundreds of thousands of civil matters that are efficiently processed through our courts every week, it makes sense that it would be confusing, difficult to understand.
People should watch the documentary Hot Coffee, which was about the most famous of these media-sensationalized "frivolous" tort claims, the woman who sued McDonald's and won hundreds of thousands of dollars after spilling coffee in her lap. I have no idea if this fits that mold, kinda seems like it doesn't, but who knows? After watching it you won't be in any hurry to jump to conclusions based on a short news item designed to outrage you.

 
I don't think I understand how this relates to the current case, but you're going to have a hard time getting service of process on a fire hydrant or a dog.
... I notice you left out infant :D

C'mon, you can't sue a child. Or shouldn't be able to. Sheesh. This is incorrect ... stuff like this is not supposed to happen.

 
This is why direct action statutes need to exist. So she can sue the insurance company directly.
I'm on board, as long as we also institute "loser pays for both attorneys" rules for frivolous lawsuits.
Guess that depends on what you mean by frivolous.
I don't have a complete definition, but I do have a handy example in the OP.
If that's included in your definition, absolutely not.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top