Auntie sues 12 year old nephew for hugging her too hard

Hi

I thought I'd add this to discussion even though it is clear which way the debate will go.

Here we have a case where an auntie is suing her 12 year old nephew for hugging her too excitedly which resulted in a broken wrist. The boy was 8 at the time and occurred on his birthday. When seeing his aunt he ran toward her shouting I love you and jumped into her arms. This led to them both falling to the ground where the aunt broke her wrist. The aunt claims the child is to blame for her suffering which has impacted upon her life greatly even up to recently with this excellent quote:

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

Having checked other sites for any outcome I have since found she lost the case only taking the jury 15 minutes to come to a conclusion.

My opinion on this matter is accidents happen. The kid wasn't being a brat but was overcome with excitement for his birthday and loved his aunt. The fact she has brought the boy to court to go through this is ridiculous. How can she justify $127,000 for a innocent accident. Also I thought I'd add the young boys mother had died which also shows he has been through enough in his life thus far.

Finally I'd like to say for the lady to grow up and try to see beyond money. Not everything is an oportunity to make money. It is clear she has lost her nephew forever all for money which she didn't even win. Grow up you silly girl. Sorry shes 53 years old.

link

That's an awesome aunt right there. Maybe she can hold a fund raiser while consuming a shaky plate of hors d’oeuvres to pay for that frivolous court case.

The 12 year old should counter sue for contaminating his gene pool before he was even born for bogging down his God given "fighting chance" at life.

a reply to: liteonit6969

The only thing I can say is that this woman is PATHETIC, maybe the kid's parents are well off and she has gotten evil eye'd greedy but what way to treat her little nepphew.

I am tempted to link a video of a laughing judge but hey unfortunatly idiot's like this woman are way too common in the world not just her home nation.

There's more to this story than what you read. It's one of those stories designed to get people talking and voicing their opinion, it buys the readership into the newspaper/website and keeps them coming back.

It's not in the news because it is newsworthy, it's in the news to get people riled up and talking about it.

I'm certain this will amount to nothing and the real story is not what is printed. But that's modern journalism.

Don't fall for it. Don't discuss it. Don't let it anger you. Let it teach you about the ways the media works though.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Op, i heard about this yesterday.

The hosebeasts lawyer and she said the eight year old was negligent and careless.

What bat#crazy bitch tries to use words like careless and negligent in the legalese meaning, to describe an 8 year old?

At least she has to pay for her blood sucking lawyer also now!!!

" and on this episode of people i hope die screaming..."

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: liteonit6969

The only thing I can say is that this woman is PATHETIC, maybe the kid's parents are well off and she has gotten evil eye'd greedy but what way to treat her little nepphew.

I am tempted to link a video of a laughing judge but hey unfortunatly idiot's like this woman are way too common in the world not just her home nation.

At least one of the kids parents are dead, i believe they both are is what i heard on the radio yesterday, but not positive, at least the mother is dead though.

a reply to: and14263

Care to elaborate on what is misleading about the article? I've torn through it a few more times, as well as went through a few more sources, and I've come across nothing more to the story than what's been reported by the source in the OP.

This is nothing more than an idiot "aunt", if you want to call her that, who's taking advantage of an accident to get some cash.

a reply to: johnwick

The Washington Post reported that the boy was in court with his father.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: johnwick

The Washington Post reported that the boy was in court with his father.

Now im suing you, for posting helpful information....

Thanks though, i feel better knowing the dad at least is still alive.

a reply to: johnwick

Now im suing you...

Please allow me to offer some hors d’oeuvres in recompense.

a reply to: EternalSolace

I guess you have to start by asking 'why' this is newsworthy. Then ask yourself if the answer you have come up with would be qualified by common sense. And, obviously - it is not - Because how can an 8 year old be sued for 'negligence and carelessness'? He can't.

Then a little look at the language within the article. The emphasis on "Poor little Johnny only wanted to say he loved his aunt" etc etc - emotive language to get the reader toiling inside. The little helpless boy only wants to love and his aunt now wants to sue.

Also the quotes from the side of the aunt - how she can't do meaningless things like hold her plate - these are extremisms used to make the reader's emotions work overtime.

Then I would look at the picture - in a variety of contexts the picture could be perceived many ways - in this context the reader (in 99%) of cases now has a target for their anger/emotion. The 'motif' of the woman's face serves to drive the emotions and direct them. As you can see by some of the names used against the aunt in the first place.



All this has been chosen by a journo for a reason and the reason is not to INFORM the reader.

However more and more so the general public are slipping into the frame of trusting and being lead by the media. God help us!

a reply to: and14263

I'm certain this will amount to nothing and the real story is not what is printed. But that's modern journalism.

I agree. Vitrol at ol Auntie aside, who is this kids present guardian? Not teaching youngsters to jump on old people is well… expected.

After she fell did they kick her, too? "You stained on our carpet."

a reply to: and14263

I guess you have to start by asking 'why' this is newsworthy.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize one person was able to dictate what others find news worthy or interesting.

Because how can an 8 year old be sued for 'negligence and carelessness'? He can't.

Common sense would also dictate that since the case went to a jury, an eight year old can indeed be sued. Which in and of itself would underscore just how absolutely stupid our justice system can be. Which could be the point of the article.


As for everything else, yes the language in the article is meant to draw the reader into an emotional response. What news article isn't written in an attempt to not only report news, but draw in readers? That doesn't change the fact that the aunt is petty.

a reply to: EternalSolace

I'm not here to argue about the motivation behind a story. Sorry if you don't agree. I fully respect your posts and opinions though. Keep up the good contributions.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Yeah, but this kid weighed 350 lbs! (Sarc) Seriously though, this aunt has to be pretty shallow to take her nephew to court for something that was clearly an accident. I wonder how much she had to spend to hire an attorney to represent her? The attorney is probably laughing all the way to the bank.

a reply to: and14263

I can't see the reason behind lying about the story. However on one of the posts on the link someone claimed it sounded odd and put it down to trying to cover up for insurance fraud? I'm not sure how the American system works so could someone maybe elaborate on this possibility?

Why hasn't the Congress passed a law against hugging yet???
Think of the , uh, GRANNIES!

originally posted by: and14263
There's more to this story than what you read. It's one of those stories designed to get people talking and voicing their opinion, it buys the readership into the newspaper/website and keeps them coming back. It's not in the news because it is newsworthy, it's in the news to get people riled up and talking about it.

I'm certain this will amount to nothing and the real story is not what is printed. But that's modern journalism. Don't fall for it. Don't discuss it. Don't let it anger you. Let it teach you about the ways the media works though.

At first I was a bit suspicious of your comment.

A quick look in Google confirmed everything you said though...

How in the world did you know?

It seems that the real 'bad guy' here is the insurance company and/or the 'justice' system...

While Connell did not speak to the media outside of court, but later told her side of the story to CNN. She said that the outrage against her on the internet, with some calling her the worst aunt in the world, is misguided. She said Connecticut law requires an individual, not an insurance company, be named as a defendant in a law suit.

“This was meant to be a simple homeowners insurance case,” she told CNN. “Connecticut law is such that I was advised by counsel that this is the way a suit is meant to be worded.” Connell said, “I adore this child. I would never want to hurt him. He would never want to hurt me,” adding that she took him shopping for his Halloween costume a few weeks ago.

“It’s amazing the power that the internet has that something can go viral, completely out of context,” she told CNN. “I’m certainly not trying to retire to some villa in the south of France. I’m simply trying to pay off my medical bills.”

Her attorney released a statement to FOX CT:

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. It was about the insurance industry and being forced to sue to get medical bills paid. She suffered a horrific injury. She had two surgeries and is potentially facing a third. Prior to the trial, the insurance company offered her one dollar. Unfortunately, due to Connecticut law, the homeowner’s insurance company could not be identified as the defendant.

Our client was very reluctant to pursue this case, but in the end she had no choice but to sue the minor defendant directly to get her bills paid. She didn’t want to do this anymore than anyone else would. But her hand was forced by the insurance company. We are disappointed in the outcome, but we understand the verdict. Our client is being attacked on social media. Our client has been through enough.

Jennifer Connell: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

a reply to: Murgatroid
So, insurance companies suing insurance companies is what this is about.
This is what we have come to today.
Thanks for the post, clearing things up a bit.