[NewJeffCT]

so, if the boy didn't jump on her, knock her down and break her wrist, would she have sued the boy for not getting the typical exuberant 8 year old hug and hurting her fee-fees?

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Raider111

It's the homeowner policy from the house in the parent's name. You really think an 8 year old would have 127K lying around and someone would want to take it. Come on, your better than that.

You would be surprised. The kid is from Westport, a very affluent community. His mother has died so there may be a trust fund in his name. Why else would a person sue an 8 year old and not the parents? Jay

[snowtired14]

"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 it has taken four years to decide to sue your nephew? Since the sister died only last year, it sounds to me like there has been some other family issues about her sister's estate. But to take it out on a kid, that's cold.

[Raider111]

Originally Posted by JayCT

You would be surprised. The kid is from Westport, a very affluent community. His mother has died so there may be a trust fund in his name. Why else would a person sue an 8 year old and not the parents? Jay

true, but in this case it's an electrician from Norwalk, I know the name. Street and house is pretty modest for Westport.
She may be a scumbag after all, but just seems very outlandish, might be more to the story.

[Mike 75]

That was quick. 25 min of deliberation. She gets nada.
Jury: Aunt who sued 8-year-old gets zero - Connecticut Post

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I take this to mean she is trying to get this money from the boy. The boy would not have a homeowner's policy. He may have money or part of the family house in trust from his mother. Either way the woman is way off base here suing her nephew. Sounds like a b**** to me. Jay

At first I thought it must be from an insurance policy. Maybe because it is the same family she knows the boy just inherited a large sum of money.

Maybe there is more to the story. I have heard of people doing crazy things when they are left out of wills or think they should have money coming to them that they did not get.

[suzy_q2010]

Let's look at this from a different perspective.

Suppose you are shopping, just leaving a business. As you step through the door, an exuberant eight year old boy on the way to his birthday party comes racing down the street and piles into you, knocking you off your feet. You sustain injuries identical to those the woman in the OP had.

How many of you would retain a lawyer to recoup your uninsured medical expenses, any lost wages, and a bit for "pain and suffering"?

How many of you would have ponied up to pay for treatment of your sister's injuries in this case without being asked? I would.

From the link it is not clear where the injured woman was when the incident happened. If she was not on the boy's family's property (public sidewalk maybe?), any homeowner's insurance may have refused to pay. If there were insurance, I would think the insurance company would be named in the suit, not the boy.

As far as having the case get to court, it is obvious that the boy's father is just as much at fault as the injured woman. Why did he not agree to a settlement before now? Was mediation attempted?

My suspicion is that the father thinks that because it was unintentional (and it was) and the woman is a family member that the father should not have any financial responsibility at all. Personally, I think he should have paid up when the incident happened. The boy did indeed cause the injuries.

The comment about the plate sounds trivial. I would roll my eyes a bit, too. However, I have had a similar injury, and I have residual weakness in the wrist I broke (due to my own carelessness - no one to sue. ). That is all the reference to the plate is designed to show.

The article in the OP was written with a deliberate slant against the woman bringing suit. I suspect it left out a great deal of information.

[Raider111]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Let's look at this from a different perspective.

Suppose you are shopping, just leaving a business. As you step through the door, an exuberant eight year old boy on the way to his birthday party comes racing down the street and piles into you, knocking you off your feet. You sustain injuries identical to those the woman in the OP had.

How many of you would retain a lawyer to recoup your uninsured medical expenses, any lost wages, and a bit for "pain and suffering"?

How many of you would have ponied up to pay for treatment of your sister's injuries in this case without being asked? I would.

From the link it is not clear where the injured woman was when the incident happened. If she was not on the boy's family's property (public sidewalk maybe?), any homeowner's insurance may have refused to pay. If there were insurance, I would think the insurance company would be named in the suit, not the boy.

As far as having the case get to court, it is obvious that the boy's father is just as much at fault as the injured woman. Why did he not agree to a settlement before now? Was mediation attempted?

My suspicion is that the father thinks that because it was unintentional (and it was) and the woman is a family member that the father should not have any financial responsibility at all. Personally, I think he should have paid up when the incident happened. The boy did indeed cause the injuries.

The comment about the plate sounds trivial. I would roll my eyes a bit, too. However, I have had a similar injury, and I have residual weakness in the wrist I broke (due to my own carelessness - no one to sue. ). That is all the reference to the plate is designed to show.

The article in the OP was written with a deliberate slant against the woman bringing suit. I suspect it left out a great deal of information.

Story is going national and she is getting destroyed. Her next lawsuit will be against the CT Post.

[convextech]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Anyone else think this is a stupid case that should NEVER have gone this far. The woman is a complete jerk IMHO. A complete waste of taxpayers money. I hope she gets the public a** whooping she deserves. Jay

8-year-old Westport boy on trial for exuberance - Connecticut Post

She lost the case and ran for her car. If she was related to me, her wrist would be the last of her worries.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Raider111

true, but in this case it's an electrician from Norwalk, I know the name. Street and house is pretty modest for Westport.
She may be a scumbag after all, but just seems very outlandish, might be more to the story.

Actually the house is pretty nice. Looks to have been a teardown or a major addition/remodel. It is now a 2 story shingled colonial with major dormers on third floor. Pretty nice and worth quite a bit in very pricey Westport. It says the electrician business is closed though so who knows what happened. Jay