Woman sues nephew for $127K after she fell at his 8th-birthday pa (6 Viewers)

[Henry Ford]

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

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.

If a kid shoots you in the face, should you just say "oh, well"?

 

[Doug B]

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've read about that case, and I understand that McDonald's was in the wrong. The famous McDonald's case actually made tons of sense.

This case of suing an 8-year-old seems wildly different, and in no way comparable. I could even understand something like the aunt suing the kid's dad for "lack of control" or some such. But I can't understand a child who cannot enter into a contract (or is THAT also state-by state?!?) being liable for ... really, anything. And yes, I understand kids getting tried as adults in the criminal system, and yet that makes all kinds of intuitive sense compared to this. Are there true perfect comparables to the OP case?

 

[Snoopy]

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

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.

If a kid shoots you in the face, should you just say "oh, well"?

I believe negligence and criminal intent are different things, especially among minors.

 

[El Floppo]

hugs not guns!

henry ford - "they're the same thing"

 

[Henry Ford]

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've read about that case, and I understand that McDonald's was in the wrong. The famous McDonald's case actually made tons of sense.

This case of suing an 8-year-old seems wildly different, and in no way comparable. I could even understand something like the aunt suing the kid's dad for "lack of control" or some such. But I can't understand a child who cannot enter into a contract (or is THAT also state-by state?!?) being liable for ... really, anything. And yes, I understand kids getting tried as adults in the criminal system, and yet that makes all kinds of intuitive sense compared to this. Are there true perfect comparables to the OP case?

Whether you have to sue the kid or the parent directly is a state by state issue.

 

[Henry Ford]

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

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.

If a kid shoots you in the face, should you just say "oh, well"?

I believe negligence and criminal intent are different things, especially among minors.

What does intent have to do with juridical standing?And I don't believe I said "intentionally shoots you in the face."

 

[TobiasFunke]

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've read about that case, and I understand that McDonald's was in the wrong. The famous McDonald's case actually made tons of sense.

This case of suing an 8-year-old seems wildly different, and in no way comparable. I could even understand something like the aunt suing the kid's dad for "lack of control" or some such. But I can't understand a child who cannot enter into a contract (or is THAT also state-by state?!?) being liable for ... really, anything. And yes, I understand kids getting tried as adults in the criminal system, and yet that makes all kinds of intuitive sense compared to this. Are there true perfect comparables to the OP case?

I agree that this case seems wildly different from that one. But then again the truth of the McDonald's case also turned out to be wildly different from what people thought based on brief news items similar to the one in the OP.

I feel like this happens all the time. There's a brief news item that seems designed to outrage, it does what it's designed to do, and then when it goes viral we find out that there's more to the story than we were led to believe. Here it might be what HF is saying- that this woman is really suing to recover from an insurer and the kid is just a stand-in whose presence is necessitated the state's tort laws.

 

[Doug B]

If a kid shoots you in the face, should you just say "oh, well"?

... yes, to a point. Where that line is drawn is admittedly fuzzy. I'm cool with a judge deciding that an 8-year-old shooter can be tried as an adult (that's actually never happened to a kid that young, right?). Say it's a 4-year-old, though, with no intent other than to imitate a TV character. Yes, that really ID tough schmidt from a criminal standpoint ... though if the victim lives, the kid's negligent parent should be held (immensely) liable. If they are indigent, have no insurance ... then it's the worst possible situation for the victim -- there is no reasonable recourse (though there may be some legal remedy of some kind, like putting a 4-year-old in juvie[?] Nah, how would that work?).

Be that as it may ... I don't think the kid jumping into his aunt is in the same universe as a purposeful gunshot. It just isn't. That was an argument from the extremes.

 

[Henry Ford]

If a kid shoots you in the face, should you just say "oh, well"?

... yes, to a point. Where that line is drawn is admittedly fuzzy. I'm cool with a judge deciding that an 8-year-old shooter can be tried as an adult (that's actually never happened to a kid that young, right?). Say it's a 4-year-old, though, with no intent other than to imitate a TV character. Yes, that really ID tough schmidt from a criminal standpoint ... though if the victim lives, the kid's negligent parent should be held (immensely) liable. If they are indigent, have no insurance ... then it's the worst possible situation for the victim -- there is no reasonable recourse (though there may be some legal remedy of some kind, like putting a 4-year-old in juvie[?] Nah, how would that work?).

Be that as it may ... I don't think the kid jumping into his aunt is in the same universe as a purposeful gunshot. It just isn't. That was an argument from the extremes.

Where did I say purposeful?

 

[Henry Ford]

And why do you assume the parents are negligent? The parents don't have to be negligent for a kid to hurt someone. And the parents aren't necessarily responsible for a negligent injury by a kid. The insurance company, however, probably would be.

 

[Doug B]

Here it might be what HF is saying- that this woman is really suing to recover from an insurer and the kid is just a stand-in whose presence is necessitated the state's tort laws.

Welp ... given this ... Connecticut's laws are incorrect, I decree.

Yeah -- they care what I think

...

I actually understand HF's point just fine. I just don't things should work that way. And I also lack the power to change things. So ... pffft. Internally, in my own mind, law is wrong quite a lot. But, externally, the sun rises and sets and no one give a rip. All understood.

 

[Doug B]

Where did I say purposeful?

To me: it doesn't matter. You're looking for more precision that I, personally, feel is warranted. I know law (typically) wants precision and much hay is made arguing fine points.

 

[Doug B]

And the parents aren't necessarily responsible for a negligent injury by a kid. The insurance company, however, probably would be.

Why doesn't "the law" ever just conclude "Schmidt happens, and you, plaintiff, have no recourse"? There always seems to be a workable angle.

 

[matttyl]

This is why direct action statutes need to exist. So she can sue the insurance company directly.

What'd they do to her?

Not pay her claim for injury

I guess I mean "What insurance company?" Her health insurance should have paid for all health related claims (subject to her deductible and such).

 

[Clifford]

Article explained in first four words: A New York woman

Strong candidate for societal cleansing.

 

[Clifford]

This is why direct action statutes need to exist. So she can sue the insurance company directly.

Actually I'd say this is why we need to stop treating every possible accident as a route to a payday.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

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"?

Its true you can file frivolous lawsuits, but its not free. You have costs as a plaintiff and you subject yourself to discovery in a public forum and, ultimately, sanctions. In this case, we know almost nothing, just a short blurb from a click-seeking sensationalist. However, it is possible the court and the defendant insurance company would prefer to go to a jury and get a final decision, rather than getting a dismissal that would be more easily appealable.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

She is getting roasted all over Facebook.

Unreal. She should be given a medal.

 

[Tom Servo]

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.

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.

You try whacking it with your left hand.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is why direct action statutes need to exist. So she can sue the insurance company directly.

Actually I'd say this is why we need to stop treating every possible accident as a route to a payday.

I recommend watching that Hot Coffee movie I mentioned before. IMO you're being sold a pile of by multi-billion dollar companies who've made a habit of shirking liability. The bottom line is when someone is hurt someone has to pay, either the person who got hurt or someone else who may have caused an injury. Tort law is about figuring out who that should be. If this case really is accurately described in the OP it's such a rare occurrence that it should be dismissed as an outlier, not held up as an example of a problem.

 

[Henry Ford]

This is why direct action statutes need to exist. So she can sue the insurance company directly.

What'd they do to her?

Not pay her claim for injury

I guess I mean "What insurance company?" Her health insurance should have paid for all health related claims (subject to her deductible and such).

The homeowner's insurance that potentially pays invitees who are injured on the property. And aren't you one who has been complaining about the size of deductibles these days?

 

[Clifford]

Man, #### happens. Sometimes it's no one's fault. There doesn't need to be legal redress to absolutely every negative event that occurs on this earth. But that line of thinking has been successfully advanced through decades of advertisements by lawyers.

If the lawyers have been successful for advancing that line of thought (and all signs point towards unparalleled success in terms of advertising) then it is shrewd and in their favor and I can't fault the profession for propping itself up in a pretty brilliant cash grab.

But let's not pretend it's anything more than that.

ETA: I am talking about events where people directly injure themselves or are injured in a scenario like this, not GM or Ford burying a malfunction that kills people, or a food company covering up salmonella. Hopefully everyone recognizes the vast gulf between the two.

 

[Henry Ford]

And the parents aren't necessarily responsible for a negligent injury by a kid. The insurance company, however, probably would be.

Why doesn't "the law" ever just conclude "Schmidt happens, and you, plaintiff, have no recourse"? There always seems to be a workable angle.

It does, sometimes. That's the other option in this case, the one that would make her lose. "It's no one's legal fault, so you can't recover" happens quite a lot, actually.

 

[johnnycakes]

Westport problems.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

And the parents aren't necessarily responsible for a negligent injury by a kid. The insurance company, however, probably would be.

Why doesn't "the law" ever just conclude "Schmidt happens, and you, plaintiff, have no recourse"? There always seems to be a workable angle.

The great majority of civil disputes (business disputes, injuries, etc.) - probably at least 90% or more - are resolved without any lawsuit at all, sometimes with the responsible party stepping up and paying, sometimes with no payment at all, and sometimes with a small settlement. Of the very few disputes that become lawsuits, at least 95% are settled prior to trial under similar terms. Of the very tiny fraction that go to trial, such as this case, we can often guess there is something somewhat odd about the case that causes the two parties to have such differing opinions on the merits that they go through the entire process and actually end up exposing themselves to the vagaries of a jury trial. For example, in this case it is possible that the insurance company thinks the case is such a frivolous matter that it did not want to pay any settlement nor bother with motion practice, etc. and just wanted to try the case. There are several other plausible explanations for how it got this far.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Man, #### happens. Sometimes it's no one's fault. There doesn't need to be legal redress to absolutely every negative event that occurs on this earth. But that line of thinking has been successfully advanced through decades of advertisements by lawyers.

If the lawyers have been successful for advancing that line of thought (and all signs point towards unparalleled success in terms of advertising) then it is shrewd and in their favor and I can't fault the profession for propping itself up in a pretty brilliant cash grab.

But let's not pretend it's anything more than that.

ETA: I am talking about events where people directly injure themselves or are injured in a scenario like this, not GM or Ford burying a malfunction that kills people, or a food company covering up salmonella. Hopefully everyone recognizes the vast gulf between the two.

Yup, that's correct. And when it happens there is no legal redress, the injured party is the person that ends up paying for it. So wish granted I guess! I mean even if you point the finger at this story, you're still talking about a case we know very little about but that appears to be an extreme outlier. And oh by the way, one for which there still hasn't been any legal redress.

Kinda seems to me that people who are outraged are just taking the bait. There's no larger problem at work here. Someone dug this up, realized they could get lots of clicks from the vast number of people out there who like to complain about stuff and have been told that they're supposed to hate lawyers, and dropped their line. And sure enough the fish came swarming.

 

[Clifford]

No need to be condescending to people who disagree with you man. The world allows for different opinions.

Just because I think this woman is a ####bag for suing her 12-y-o nephew and that what occurred to her was an unfortunate accident with no one at fault, does not mean I don't see suing as absolutely legal and vital in other areas.

There are more than black and white crayons in your box. Break em out.

ETA: In view of homeowners insurance covering accidental injury (nothing about this incident was negligent from any side) then I don't see why she can't sue them directly. If all they cover is injuries on the property resulting from negligence on part of the homeowners, then she's got nothing.

Nope, nevermind, specifically citing negligence on the part of an eight year old

“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.

And calling BS on breaking your wrist but not saying anything or alerting anyone at the time.

 

[fantasycurse42]

The kid should be quarantined so they can determine if he is a threat to others.

Good call, he could have rabies.

 

[fantasycurse42]

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

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.

If a kid shoots you in the face, should you just say "oh, well"?

I'd say the parent or gun owner should be much more liable in this example (depending on the age of the child)

 

[TobiasFunke]

No need to be condescending to people who disagree with you man. The world allows for different opinions.

Just because I think this woman is a ####bag for suing her 12-y-o nephew and that what occurred to her was an unfortunate accident with no one at fault, does not mean I don't see suing as absolutely legal and vital in other areas.

There are more than black and white crayons in your box. Break em out.

ETA: In view of homeowners insurance covering accidental injury (nothing about this incident was negligent from any side) then I don't see why she can't sue them directly. If all they cover is injuries on the property resulting from negligence on part of the homeowners, then she's got nothing.

Nope, nevermind, specifically citing negligence on the part of an eight year old

“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.

And calling BS on breaking your wrist but not saying anything or alerting anyone at the time.

I wasn't trying to be condescending. I mean, I do think this is just clickbait or maybe a crazy outlier and was picked to trigger pageviews and people are taking that bait, and it's hard to say that without sounding condescending. But beyond that I tried not to take any shots. Sorry if I failed.

Anyway, I don't know the law in that state or any other regarding insurance recovery in a case like this, but I think HF is saying that this woman may possibly have had no choice but to sue the kid for negligence if she wanted to recover from the insurer on the homeowner policy, just because that's the way the law works in that state.

 

[Emerson Biggens]

Well ####, if someone should pay every time someone gets hurt, who do I sue? I've been blind in my left eye since I was one because a baby sitter threw me against a wall. That's a whole lot of years of putting up with a lot more than a fat ##### not being able to hold a plate. Who can I sue? Or maybe the babysitter sued me when I was one and I don't realize. Maybe he hurt his throwing shoulder.

 

[Henry Ford]

ETA: In view of homeowners insurance covering accidental injury (nothing about this incident was negligent from any side) then I don't see why she can't sue them directly.

Because under Connecticut law, she doesn't have a cause of action against the insurance company until she has a judgment against a tortfeasor.

 

[Clifford]

No need to be condescending to people who disagree with you man. The world allows for different opinions.

Just because I think this woman is a ####bag for suing her 12-y-o nephew and that what occurred to her was an unfortunate accident with no one at fault, does not mean I don't see suing as absolutely legal and vital in other areas.

There are more than black and white crayons in your box. Break em out.

ETA: In view of homeowners insurance covering accidental injury (nothing about this incident was negligent from any side) then I don't see why she can't sue them directly. If all they cover is injuries on the property resulting from negligence on part of the homeowners, then she's got nothing.

Nope, nevermind, specifically citing negligence on the part of an eight year old

“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.

And calling BS on breaking your wrist but not saying anything or alerting anyone at the time.

I wasn't trying to be condescending. I mean, I do think this is just clickbait or maybe a crazy outlier and was picked to trigger pageviews and people are taking that bait, and it's hard to say that without sounding condescending. But beyond that I tried not to take any shots. Sorry if I failed.

Anyway, I don't know the law in that state or any other regarding insurance recovery in a case like this, but I think HF is saying that this woman may possibly have had no choice but to sue the kid for negligence if she wanted to recover from the insurer on the homeowner policy, just because that's the way the law works in that state.

If the basis for suing is negligence then you (or actually a judge) would have to conclude the act of an eight-year-old embracing his aunt was negligent. Which we all know is bull####.

This is where I think we have gone too far to the other side. I don't think this kids dad or an insurance company should have to spend money hiring a lawyer to defend this.

So ultimately both go to court, the judge rules no negligence, and the woman and the kids dad have both shelled out money for legal services.

So who does this serve?

 

[James Daulton]

This is why direct action statutes need to exist. So she can sue the insurance company directly.

Actually I'd say this is why we need to stop treating every possible accident as a route to a payday.

I recommend watching that Hot Coffee movie I mentioned before. IMO you're being sold a pile of by multi-billion dollar companies who've made a habit of shirking liability. The bottom line is when someone is hurt someone has to pay, either the person who got hurt or someone else who may have caused an injury. Tort law is about figuring out who that should be. If this case really is accurately described in the OP it's such a rare occurrence that it should be dismissed as an outlier, not held up as an example of a problem.

Why is this exactly? So if I'm walking, trip over my own feet on your lawn and break my leg, I should get to sue? You seriously think that makes any kind of sense?

 

[Clifford]

ETA: In view of homeowners insurance covering accidental injury (nothing about this incident was negligent from any side) then I don't see why she can't sue them directly.

Because under Connecticut law, she doesn't have a cause of action against the insurance company until she has a judgment against a tortfeasor.

I just meant to say I agree with you that she should be able to. But I don't think anything here points to negligence.

 

[Henry Ford]

If the basis for suing is negligence then you (or actually a judge) would have to conclude the act of an eight-year-old embracing his aunt was negligent. Which we all know is bull####.

This is where I think we have gone too far to the other side. I don't think this kids dad or an insurance company should have to spend money hiring a lawyer to defend this.

So ultimately both go to court, the judge rules no negligence, and the woman and the kids dad have both shelled out money for legal services.

So who does this serve?

According to the filings, looks like we'd have to conclude that the act of an eight-year-old launching himself into the air and knocking his aunt over was negligent.

 

[Clifford]

Tomato tomahto on that one HF

 

[Henry Ford]

This is why direct action statutes need to exist. So she can sue the insurance company directly.

Actually I'd say this is why we need to stop treating every possible accident as a route to a payday.

I recommend watching that Hot Coffee movie I mentioned before. IMO you're being sold a pile of by multi-billion dollar companies who've made a habit of shirking liability. The bottom line is when someone is hurt someone has to pay, either the person who got hurt or someone else who may have caused an injury. Tort law is about figuring out who that should be. If this case really is accurately described in the OP it's such a rare occurrence that it should be dismissed as an outlier, not held up as an example of a problem.

Why is this exactly? So if I'm walking, trip over my own feet on your lawn and break my leg, I should get to sue? You seriously think that makes any kind of sense?

Read the rest of the sentence.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

This is why direct action statutes need to exist. So she can sue the insurance company directly.

Actually I'd say this is why we need to stop treating every possible accident as a route to a payday.

I recommend watching that Hot Coffee movie I mentioned before. IMO you're being sold a pile of by multi-billion dollar companies who've made a habit of shirking liability. The bottom line is when someone is hurt someone has to pay, either the person who got hurt or someone else who may have caused an injury. Tort law is about figuring out who that should be. If this case really is accurately described in the OP it's such a rare occurrence that it should be dismissed as an outlier, not held up as an example of a problem.

Why is this exactly? So if I'm walking, trip over my own feet on your lawn and break my leg, I should get to sue? You seriously think that makes any kind of sense?

Not what he is saying. In that scenario, you would be the one paying. Of course in 'Murica, you could probably sue the last person who mowed that lawn for negligence.

 

[dgreen]

tortfeasor

This was going to be my username here if "dgreen" was already taken.

 

[Henry Ford]

Tomato tomahto on that one HF

If I embraced my wife like that, I'd be in jail for domestic battery.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is why direct action statutes need to exist. So she can sue the insurance company directly.

Actually I'd say this is why we need to stop treating every possible accident as a route to a payday.

I recommend watching that Hot Coffee movie I mentioned before. IMO you're being sold a pile of by multi-billion dollar companies who've made a habit of shirking liability. The bottom line is when someone is hurt someone has to pay, either the person who got hurt or someone else who may have caused an injury. Tort law is about figuring out who that should be. If this case really is accurately described in the OP it's such a rare occurrence that it should be dismissed as an outlier, not held up as an example of a problem.

Why is this exactly? So if I'm walking, trip over my own feet on your lawn and break my leg, I should get to sue? You seriously think that makes any kind of sense?

As the next phrase in my post indicates, I'm including the person who got hurt as a "someone" who might have to pay. If you caused your own injury, you pay for it with your own uncompensated pain and suffering and financial loss. That's what I meant.

 

[Clifford]

Unless of course you were an eight-year-old, which the defendant was.

 

[Henry Ford]

Unless of course you were an eight-year-old, which the defendant was.

Yes, if I were an eight-year-old, she'd be the one in jail for marrying an eight-year-old.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Can we change the title of this thread? The woman didn't "fall". She was attacked and knocked to the ground.

This is like saying Ruben Tejada "fell".

 

[Henry Ford]

Serious question: if this woman were a stranger who the kid jumped at to hug (for whatever reason - mistaken identity, thought it was cute when meeting a new person, whatever) and knocked down, would your opinion change?

 

[fantasycurse42]

Can we change the title of this thread? The woman didn't "fall". She was attacked and knocked to the ground.

This is like saying Ruben Tejada "fell".

Assaulted IMO

 

[RCon]

The homeowner's insurance that potentially pays invitees who are injured on the property. And aren't you one who has been complaining about the size of deductibles these days?

Right, this is where I take issue. Insurance companies shouldn't be required to pay for any injury that occurs on a property which they insure. If I break my hand punching a wall, I shouldn't be able to file a claim. This situation, as described in the article, is the same. The woman should file a claim with her health insurance, but there should be no other avenue for compensation/recourse.

 

[Clifford]

Unless of course you were an eight-year-old, which the defendant was.

Yes, if I were an eight-year-old, she'd be the one in jail for marrying an eight-year-old.

Unless she was hot...

 

[Henry Ford]

The homeowner's insurance that potentially pays invitees who are injured on the property. And aren't you one who has been complaining about the size of deductibles these days?

Right, this is where I take issue. Insurance companies shouldn't be required to pay for any injury that occurs on a property which they insure. If I break my hand punching a wall, I shouldn't be able to file a claim. This situation, as described in the article, is the same. The woman should file a claim with her health insurance, but there should be no other avenue for compensation/recourse.

They aren't required to. And this isn't the same as punching a wall. It may not be compensable, but she didn't intentionally perform an act that caused injury to her own body.