Page 1 of 3
The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:36 am
by warspite1
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:50 am
by Chickenboy
Saw that and discussed with Mrs. Chickenboy at length last night. I thought that one could sue *the parents* of children in situations like this. Apparently the bar for liability is set very high for children, to the point that, unless it's a willful situation, even the parents are clear.
For example: Kid riding his bike down the street crashes into your parked car and damages same. Parent not liable, as this is 'normal behavior'. Kid takes rocks and throws them at your car=parents liable for damage.
I think the broken wrists was the former rather than the latter.
But still? Who sues their young nephew for an overzealous emotional display? [8|]
I thought it amusing that the jury only deliberated for 20 minutes. I don't think her testimony about "I could barely hold my hors'douvres tray" won her much sympathy either. [:D]
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:52 am
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Saw that and discussed with Mrs. Chickenboy at length last night. I thought that one could sue *the parents* of children in situations like this. Apparently the bar for liability is set very high for children, to the point that, unless it's a willful situation, even the parents are clear.
For example: Kid riding his bike down the street crashes into your parked car and damages same. Parent not liable, as this is 'normal behavior'. Kid takes rocks and throws them at your car=parents liable for damage.
I think the broken wrists was the former rather than the latter.
But still? Who sues their young nephew for an overzealous emotional display? [8|]
I thought it amusing that the jury only deliberated for 20 minutes. I don't think her testimony about "
I could barely hold my hors'douvres tray" won her much sympathy either. [:D]
warspite1
Yes, but in fairness we are talking hors d'ouvres. I mean this is serious right?
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 12:17 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Saw that and discussed with Mrs. Chickenboy at length last night. I thought that one could sue *the parents* of children in situations like this. Apparently the bar for liability is set very high for children, to the point that, unless it's a willful situation, even the parents are clear.
For example: Kid riding his bike down the street crashes into your parked car and damages same. Parent not liable, as this is 'normal behavior'. Kid takes rocks and throws them at your car=parents liable for damage.
I think the broken wrists was the former rather than the latter.
But still? Who sues their young nephew for an overzealous emotional display? [8|]
I thought it amusing that the jury only deliberated for 20 minutes. I don't think her testimony about "
I could barely hold my hors'douvres tray" won her much sympathy either. [:D]
warspite1
Yes, but in fairness we are talking hors d'ouvres. I mean this is serious right?
I knew my spelling on this would come back to haunt me. [:'(]
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 4:49 pm
by Aurelian
Inset lawyer jokes here.
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 5:18 pm
by Zap
Thankfully, there are people who can still reason correctly. The women was not awarded anything by the jury. So not only did she loose the case but will probably loose the affection of the young boy and her sister or brother.
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 6:50 pm
by jcjordan
I heard some discussion on this & think it had more to do w/ the aunt that sued was left out of will of kid's parents so she was trying to get a share of the estate - sour grapes in any case & glad jury pretty much gave her a giant middle finger
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:11 pm
by Aurelian
ORIGINAL: jcjordan
I heard some discussion on this & think it had more to do w/ the aunt that sued was left out of will of kid's parents so she was trying to get a share of the estate - sour grapes in any case & glad jury pretty much gave her a giant middle finger
Since the kid lives with his father, there is no will or estate to get a share of.
She wanted the money from the homeowner's insurance company. But under Connecticut law, the homeowner’s insurance company could not be identified as the defendant.
And she isn't his aunt. She's a cousin of the father.
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:22 pm
by Zap
ORIGINAL: Aurelian
ORIGINAL: jcjordan
I heard some discussion on this & think it had more to do w/ the aunt that sued was left out of will of kid's parents so she was trying to get a share of the estate - sour grapes in any case & glad jury pretty much gave her a giant middle finger
Since the kid lives with his father, there is no will or estate to get a share of.
She wanted the money from the homeowner's insurance company. But under Connecticut law, the homeowner’s insurance company could not be identified as the defendant.
And she isn't his aunt. She's a cousin of the father.
Still being reported as Aunt by several news media. That's typical too inaccuracies in reporting is rampant.
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:34 pm
by Aurelian
ORIGINAL: Zap
ORIGINAL: Aurelian
ORIGINAL: jcjordan
I heard some discussion on this & think it had more to do w/ the aunt that sued was left out of will of kid's parents so she was trying to get a share of the estate - sour grapes in any case & glad jury pretty much gave her a giant middle finger
Since the kid lives with his father, there is no will or estate to get a share of.
She wanted the money from the homeowner's insurance company. But under Connecticut law, the homeowner’s insurance company could not be identified as the defendant.
And she isn't his aunt. She's a cousin of the father.
Still being reported as Aunt by several news media. That's typical too inaccuracies in reporting is rampant.
They haven't caught up yet
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:34 pm
by rhondabrwn
Since she was going for the insurance money, I doubt that any family members were offended.
Had a neighbor approached me once about re-roofing my house for half the price of the contractor's estimate. I let them do it.
He started the job with rain threatening, then as he was trying to cover the stripped roof with a tarp, he slid off the 2nd story roof of my tri-level, falling onto the driveway asphalt below. He was very seriously injured with multiple bone fractures and was in a wheel chair for almost a year.
He turned the bills in under his employer's insurance, pretending it was an accident at his own home. Doing roofing on the side wasn't eligible for coverage... so he committed insurance fraud. When they found out, he lost his job.
Then, he sued me for damages! My Homeowners Insurance carrier handled the defense and won the case, no money from me! Then he filed a Worker's Compensation claim which was also denied.
They were pretty well screwed. I don't blame them for trying to get money out of my insurance carrier. That seems a harmless target to most people... right? Of course, this kind of stuff runs up everyone's premiums so we all pay in the end.
So, I suspect in this instance, all parties were participating with a "nudge and a wink" as they attempted to get money out of an accident.
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 8:09 pm
by Zap
ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn
Since she was going for the insurance money, I doubt that any family members were offended.
Had a neighbor approached me once about re-roofing my house for half the price of the contractor's estimate. I let them do it.
He started the job with rain threatening, then as he was trying to cover the stripped roof with a tarp, he slid off the 2nd story roof of my tri-level, falling onto the driveway asphlt below. He was very seriously injured with multiple bone fractures and was in a wheel chair for almost a year.
He turned the bills in under his employer's insurance, pretending it was an accident at his own home. Doing roofing on the side wasn't eligible for coverage... so he committed insurance fraud. When they found out, he lost his job.
Then, he sued me for damages! My Homeowners Insurance carrier handled the defense and won the case, no money from me! Then he filed a Worker's Compensation claim which was also denied.
They were pretty well screwed. I don't blame them for trying to get money out of my insurance carrier. That seems a harmless target to most people... right? Of course, this kind of stuff runs up everyone's premiums so we all pay in the end.
So, I suspect in this instance, all parties were participating with a "nudge and a wink" as they attempted to get money out of an accident.
Hi Ronda, the only problem with them going after your insurance, and they win. Your monthly will go up and if you were negligent your insurance will probably drop you.
I too had a similar experience as you experienced. The case just ended after 5 years. People came by, the women slipped on a stair (was not hurt) but decided to go after my insurance. She pulled out when a witness who saw the whole thing and was ready to testify. This same women had a suit against Mc Donalds (who she worked for them) she tried to get a friend to lie for her, in order to win her case. The friend chose not to testify. She was fearful because she believed Macs had a camera in store that would catch her false testimony.
There is another point that should be mentioned. There is the character issue. What about the lack of honesty of people. Ethical and moral formation by the parents
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 10:19 pm
by jamus34
Biggest problem nowadays - a complete lack of self responsibility.
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:02 pm
by KISSMEUFOOL!
Abolish insurance altogether. The cost of living will then drop by 50% overnight.
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 12:04 am
by JWW
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Saw that and discussed with Mrs. Chickenboy at length last night. I thought that one could sue *the parents* of children in situations like this. Apparently the bar for liability is set very high for children, to the point that, unless it's a willful situation, even the parents are clear.
For example: Kid riding his bike down the street crashes into your parked car and damages same. Parent not liable, as this is 'normal behavior'. Kid takes rocks and throws them at your car=parents liable for damage.
I think the broken wrists was the former rather than the latter.
But still? Who sues their young nephew for an overzealous emotional display? [8|]
I thought it amusing that the jury only deliberated for 20 minutes. I don't think her testimony about "
I could barely hold my hors'douvres tray" won her much sympathy either. [:D]
warspite1
Yes, but in fairness we are talking hors d'ouvres. I mean this is serious right?
But are these light hors d'ouvres or heavy hors d'ouvres. It makes a difference.
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 12:17 am
by rhondabrwn
My case dragged out over three years, but my insurance wasn't negatively affected. It was just viewed as a "nuisance suit".
In this case, the example being set of moral turpitude can't be good for the kids
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 1:09 am
by Zap
Its still a frustration because you have to take time out for the deposition and if it goes to court, taking the time out for that as well. Also the nervousness of living with the thing hanging over your head for a long period of time.
Though the fact that he fell off your roof and injured himself you do think that your homeowners would have to pay. But in California negligence on the part of the homeowner must be proved. I suppose its the same in New Mexico.
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 4:58 pm
by Chickenboy
For non-name brand house service people (e.g., electricians, plumbers, etc.), I steadfastly ask after their license and bonding information before I let them do my work. That's got potential lawsuit written all over it otherwise.
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 7:54 pm
by Gilmer
We've become too sue happy in the states. My brother had a party for his 9 year old son and the kids were out in the yard riding a red cart down a 3 foot hill. Seems harmless. But, my brother still went out and specifically told them, to stop.
They did not, a kid broke his arm, his family sued and the insurance people settled. My brother should have made them stop, I get that, but when I was a kid, if you broke your arm at a neighbor's house, you got it treated and no one sued crap.
RE: The world is totally and utterly potty - Part 457
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 9:54 pm
by Zap
ORIGINAL: jamus34
Biggest problem nowadays - a complete lack of self responsibility.
I think this attitude has made it to legal litigation. Look for negligence of others for a possible payoff. Even though in most cases it should simply be classified as an accidental occurrence. Until our society figures out personal responsibility should be the emphasis our cry baby society (wa,wa its the others guys fault) will add to societies ills.