Worst aunt ever
Nephew gets sued, learns hard lesson
Here’s something that we can leave in 2015– suing your nephew for $127,000 because of a hug.
This may sound crazy, but it was the reality for 54-year-old Jennifer Connell and 12-year-old Sean Tarala.
The story began when Connell was attending Tarala’s birthday party in 2011. When she arrived, she was greeted by a child that launched himself into her, knocking her over.
This child turned out to be little Tarala, who was eight at the time. As the two fell to the ground, Connell sustained a broken wrist.
Connell said she didn’t complain at the time because it was his birthday party and didn’t want to upset him. Instead, she chose the more classy route, suing the child for more than $100,000 four years later.
The two met in court on Oct. 13, 2015. Tarala was the only defendant.
“I live in Manhattan in a third-floor walkup, so it has been very difficult,” testified Connell, according to nydailynews.com “And we all know how crowded it is in Manhattan.”
“I was at a party recently and it was difficult to hold my hors d’oeuvres plate,” she also testified.
What a brave martyr.
Surely this horrible tragedy would come to an end, and this 12-year-old monster would meet his premature doom, right?
Well, the Superior Court disagreed. It only took them 25 minutes to decide unanimously that the child was not liable.
On Oct. 14, a day after the decision, Connell’s lawyer issued the following statement, “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.”
Let that statement really soak in.
As you can imagine, some were not as reserved in their judgment as I am attempting to be. After news of the lawsuit surfaced online, a social media firestorm was started, showering Connell with colorful names such as, “The Auntie-Christ.”
Connell and Tarala rode this newfound fame all the way to an appearance on the “Today Show,” where Tarala stated, “She would never do anything to hurt the family or us. She loves us.” Connell also again claimed that suing was just “a technicality” to get homeowner’s insurance to pay for her medical bills.
Sure, that’s why you sued your nephew for an astronomical amount that is far more than even the wildest medical bills, right? Unless I’ve been living under a rock and the only cure nowadays for a broken wrist is a new Ferrari, this excuse doesn’t really check out to me.
Connell has offered no further comment following her “Today Show” interview, and it is unknown whether her hors d’oeuvres will be OK.
Let’s hope there are no bad feelings between the two and they’ll be able to just hug it out.
John Devlin • Jul 9, 2019 at 12:31 pm
This situation isn’t that unusual; it’s actually the main reason homeowner’s policies have liability coverage.
True, the coverage protects the residents against the legal consequences of their negligence, but just as importantly, it protects people (often friends or relatives) who are injured on the property. Of course, the policies only pay out if there was negligence, so often a lawsuit’s commenced.
My guess is that the Court dismissed the claim on the basis that the hug wasn’t negligent (possibly because less is expected of young children when it comes to looking out for others), which is probably why the insurance company defended it, ironically against the boy and his family’s wishes (your liability insurer has both a duty and a right to “defend” you, so even if you want the insurance company to pay the victim, they can veto you and go to trial)..
I’m reminded of a similar Canadian case I learned in law school, Dobson v. Dobson, where the plaintiff was a baby who’d been injured in utero in a car accident, and the defendant was its mother, who’d been driving. Why would a baby sue its own mother? To access liability insurance proceeds and pay for medical care. Obviously, the mother wanted to “lose” the lawsuit, because otherwise the loss would be uninsured–so she’s actually probably the one who really commenced the lawsuit. The insurance company “defending” her had other views, and succeeded. So she had to pay insurance premiums and, in the end, didn’t have coverage.
Dennis • Apr 14, 2019 at 9:56 am
This is a false story that needs to be taken down otherwise can be considered SLANDER
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsxHTE6CYkU