WWTBAM Bored

Went to Jury Duty yesterday. Hoping not to get on a jury due to work, helping with Logan, etc. Nope. Got chosen for a medical malpractice case (with a death) and a likely 4 week schedule.

But as a side note. When I left the courthouse, there were a bunch of TV cameras waiting for someone. Channels 3, 8, 12 and even Inside Edition. Turns out the aunt who was suing her nephew because he jumped on her and she fell and broke her wrist was one of the civil cases yesterday. Boy is she glad I didn't get on that jury. To have also heard that he lost his Mom last year and she was still suing him just makes my stomach churn.

Cross posted from EFB

christie1111 wrote:Went to Jury Duty yesterday. Hoping not to get on a jury due to work, helping with Logan, etc. Nope. Got chosen for a medical malpractice case (with a death) and a likely 4 week schedule.

But as a side note. When I left the courthouse, there were a bunch of TV cameras waiting for someone. Channels 3, 8, 12 and even Inside Edition. Turns out the aunt who was suing her nephew because he jumped on her and she fell and broke her wrist was one of the civil cases yesterday. Boy is she glad I didn't get on that jury. To have also heard that he lost his Mom last year and she was still suing him just makes my stomach churn.

Cross posted from EFB

The aunt got nothing - the court dismissed the suit.

earendel wrote:

christie1111 wrote:Went to Jury Duty yesterday. Hoping not to get on a jury due to work, helping with Logan, etc. Nope. Got chosen for a medical malpractice case (with a death) and a likely 4 week schedule.

But as a side note. When I left the courthouse, there were a bunch of TV cameras waiting for someone. Channels 3, 8, 12 and even Inside Edition. Turns out the aunt who was suing her nephew because he jumped on her and she fell and broke her wrist was one of the civil cases yesterday. Boy is she glad I didn't get on that jury. To have also heard that he lost his Mom last year and she was still suing him just makes my stomach churn.

Cross posted from EFB

The aunt got nothing - the court dismissed the suit.

It's probably not as bad as all that. The injury occurred at the boy's home, which means that the boy is covered under his parents' homeowners insurance. This lawsuit was obviously an attempt to get at the insurance policy. My guess is that the insurance company got an order prohibiting the parties from mentioning this fact because it would undoubtedly prejudice the jury if they read about it.

If the aunt (or anyone else at the party) had slipped on a wet kitchen floor and broken her wrist, no one would have said a word about it. It's the thought that she was trying to get money from a 12-year-old boy that got people upset (which was what the insurance company wanted in the first place).

My first thought was they are suing insurance company are people that naïve?

silverscreenselect wrote:

earendel wrote:

christie1111 wrote:Went to Jury Duty yesterday. Hoping not to get on a jury due to work, helping with Logan, etc. Nope. Got chosen for a medical malpractice case (with a death) and a likely 4 week schedule.

But as a side note. When I left the courthouse, there were a bunch of TV cameras waiting for someone. Channels 3, 8, 12 and even Inside Edition. Turns out the aunt who was suing her nephew because he jumped on her and she fell and broke her wrist was one of the civil cases yesterday. Boy is she glad I didn't get on that jury. To have also heard that he lost his Mom last year and she was still suing him just makes my stomach churn.

Cross posted from EFB

The aunt got nothing - the court dismissed the suit.

It's probably not as bad as all that. The injury occurred at the boy's home, which means that the boy is covered under his parents' homeowners insurance. This lawsuit was obviously an attempt to get at the insurance policy. My guess is that the insurance company got an order prohibiting the parties from mentioning this fact because it would undoubtedly prejudice the jury if they read about it.

If the aunt (or anyone else at the party) had slipped on a wet kitchen floor and broken her wrist, no one would have said a word about it. It's the thought that she was trying to get money from a 12-year-old boy that got people upset (which was what the insurance company wanted in the first place).

Assuming the family were actually homeowners and not renters.

tlynn78 wrote: Assuming the family were actually homeowners and not renters.

Renters insurance also includes liability coverage.

silverscreenselect wrote:

tlynn78 wrote: Assuming the family were actually homeowners and not renters.

Renters insurance also includes liability coverage.

Only if they buy it. Only about a third of renters nationwide get it.

Aunt says it's about insurance:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015 ... /73928504/

tlynn78 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

tlynn78 wrote: Assuming the family were actually homeowners and not renters.

Renters insurance also includes liability coverage.

Only if they buy it. Only about a third of renters nationwide get it.

The last apartments I rented from were very insistent about getting renters insurance, even to the point that if you didn't have it, you had to sign a waiver. That was primarily because of some high-profile fires there. Of course, I always had it because I had teens in the house (a big potential for liability) and, being apartments, I was always worried about some of the neighbors.

Here's an article about a woman who sued herself:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2189925-155/ ... rself-over

Bob Juch wrote:Here's an article about a woman who sued herself:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2189925-155/ ... rself-over

The decision sound right to me. Estate executors have to act in the best interest of the estate, even if it's not good for them personally. If the courts thought that wasn't possible in this case, they could replace the widow with an administrator, and the suit could go on.

jarnon wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Estate executors have to act in the best interest of the estate, even if it's not good for them personally.

Again, this is to a large extent about insurance. The insurance company has an obligation to defend her as the driver, so in all probability the bulk of the settlement money will come from insurance. There are laws in many states that prevent close family members from suing each other, but obviously the Utah Appeals Court did not find that applied in this case (it also wouldn't apply to the aunt-nephew situation).

silverscreenselect wrote:

jarnon wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Estate executors have to act in the best interest of the estate, even if it's not good for them personally.

Again, this is to a large extent about insurance. The insurance company has an obligation to defend her as the driver, so in all probability the bulk of the settlement money will come from insurance. There are laws in many states that prevent close family members from suing each other, but obviously the Utah Appeals Court did not find that applied in this case (it also wouldn't apply to the aunt-nephew situation).

If Utah had such a law, nobody in the state of Utah could sue anybody else in the state of Utah....

lb13

In my Tort Law class, we read a number of cases that involved a minor committing an intentional tort. All of them were attempts to collect on the parent's homeowner's policy. Prof. said this was usually why you see these cases, but that doesn't mean there aren't cases that involve bad blood between the parties.

silverscreenselect wrote:

jarnon wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Estate executors have to act in the best interest of the estate, even if it's not good for them personally.

Again, this is to a large extent about insurance. The insurance company has an obligation to defend her as the driver, so in all probability the bulk of the settlement money will come from insurance. There are laws in many states that prevent close family members from suing each other, but obviously the Utah Appeals Court did not find that applied in this case (it also wouldn't apply to the aunt-nephew situation).

To be more precise, I think those laws preclude insurance coverage for such cases, rather than precluding the lawsuits altogether. --Bob

littlebeast13 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

jarnon wrote:

Again, this is to a large extent about insurance. The insurance company has an obligation to defend her as the driver, so in all probability the bulk of the settlement money will come from insurance. There are laws in many states that prevent close family members from suing each other, but obviously the Utah Appeals Court did not find that applied in this case (it also wouldn't apply to the aunt-nephew situation).

If Utah had such a law, nobody in the state of Utah could sue anybody else in the state of Utah....

lb13

And I wouldn't be able to sue anyone at all!