Seems pretty cut and dried to me. He was negligent in giving her a hug and therefore the father (or his homeowner's insurance most likely, right?) must pay her $127,000.
jailed for assault on a defenseless lady? If this little shit doesn't get charged and wins this trial, you know he's going to continue on his heinous ways of getting overly excited about his relatives and showing them such affection. Think about all of the potential future victims!
Forget that, I'm trying to see if I can get my nephew to give me a running hug, to see if I fall on my water polo shoulder and ring up the big bucks.
However, after seeing the Mother's funeral announcement, I'm betting she's trying to get the insurance money away from the (possibly) abusive widower.
Highly unlikely. If that were the case wouldn't she be bring action for custody or some sort of conservatorship with respect to the insurance proceeds for the child's benefit?
RE: RE: Am I the only one, who wants to see this little punk... Â
jailed for assault on a defenseless lady? If this little shit doesn't get charged and wins this trial, you know he's going to continue on his heinous ways of getting overly excited about his relatives and showing them such affection. Think about all of the potential future victims!
Forget that, I'm trying to see if I can get my nephew to give me a running hug, to see if I fall on my water polo shoulder and ring up the big bucks.
Make sure it's one of your portly nephews. I bet that will make it almost a slam dunk that you'll get your big payout. And really, who does it hurt other than the home insurance company?
RE: apparently it never occurred to her to hold that hors d'eurve plate Â
However, after seeing the Mother's funeral announcement, I'm betting she's trying to get the insurance money away from the (possibly) abusive widower.
Highly unlikely. If that were the case wouldn't she be bring action for custody or some sort of conservatorship with respect to the insurance proceeds for the child's benefit?
What if he was only abusive to the Mother and there's no evidence he did anything to the kid?
However, after seeing the Mother's funeral announcement, I'm betting she's trying to get the insurance money away from the (possibly) abusive widower.
Highly unlikely. If that were the case wouldn't she be bring action for custody or some sort of conservatorship with respect to the insurance proceeds for the child's benefit?
What if he was only abusive to the Mother and there's no evidence he did anything to the kid?
Irrelevant. If she wins she gets to do anything with the proceeds she wishes, including spending it on herself. If she was out to protect the child she could actually strengthen her case by litigating to put the money in a trust or conservatorship to benefit the child.
One said the jury took all of 25 minutes to reach a verdict. My comment- That's probably as long as it took them to go through a plate of hors d'oeuvres.
Second was that all the women named Jennifer Connell are busy changing their names so they won't be asked when they meet people "Are YOU the Jennifer Connell that...."
“I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d’oeuvre plate,” she said.
Imagine rich in houston's law suit payout, based only on the pain and suffering!
How about this ....
[i]"But when he spotted Connell, he dropped the new bicycle on the ground, exclaiming, “Auntie Jen, Auntie Jen.”
“All of a sudden he was there in the air, I had to catch him and we tumbled onto the ground,” Connell testified of her encounter with the 50-pound boy. “I remember him shouting, ‘Auntie Jen I love you,’ and there he was flying at me.”
[i]
This can't be true.
I know he is 12 now but, the incident happened when he was 8 YEARS OLD.
Can an 8 year old be sued? Please tell me any Judge in the country can throw this out of court.
p.s. "The Daily Mail" (if it is the one from England) is the biggest F.O.S newspaper on the planet. This might be a crock.
The injuries, losses and harms to the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the minor defendant in that a reasonable eight years old under those circumstances would know or should have known that a forceful greeting such as the one delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff could cause the harms and losses suffered by the plaintiff,” the lawsuit claims
Right or wrong, this shit right here is why people think lawyers are the scum of the fucking earth. The fact that someone actually took the time to write this garbage, knowing full well that it's all because an 8-year-old boy was happy to see his aunt on his birthday, is fucking despicable. What kind of shitstain subhuman would take this case?
I hope this wretched bitch slips on dog shit leaving her next dinner party and breaks her fucking hip. Maybe she can slap a lawsuit on the dog if she ever finds it.
I agree about the lawyers taking outrageous cases. But frankly they wouldn't take the cases if juries didn't award damages for this crap. And juries are YOU and ME. Not lawyers. And the really pathetic thing is - anyone gets hit in the rear in a car, and there are 20 friends and family telling him to "file a claim". That's what this woman is doing. She knows if she wins the homeowners insurance company pays.
So sure blame the asshole lawyer. I agree. But if you want to know the actual source of the real problem, be sure to look in the collective mirror.
The injuries, losses and harms to the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the minor defendant in that a reasonable eight years old under those circumstances would know or should have known that a forceful greeting such as the one delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff could cause the harms and losses suffered by the plaintiff,” the lawsuit claims
Right or wrong, this shit right here is why people think lawyers are the scum of the fucking earth. The fact that someone actually took the time to write this garbage, knowing full well that it's all because an 8-year-old boy was happy to see his aunt on his birthday, is fucking despicable. What kind of shitstain subhuman would take this case?
I hope this wretched bitch slips on dog shit leaving her next dinner party and breaks her fucking hip. Maybe she can slap a lawsuit on the dog if she ever finds it.
I agree about the lawyers taking outrageous cases. But frankly they wouldn't take the cases if juries didn't award damages for this crap. And juries are YOU and ME. Not lawyers. And the really pathetic thing is - anyone gets hit in the rear in a car, and there are 20 friends and family telling him to "file a claim". That's what this woman is doing. She knows if she wins the homeowners insurance company pays.
So sure blame the asshole lawyer. I agree. But if you want to know the actual source of the real problem, be sure to look in the collective mirror.
I never report for jury duty, so it's not my fault.
She had to do this in order to make her insurance scam claim work.
Quote:
"This was meant to be a simple homeowners insurance case," she said. "Connecticut law is such that I was advised by counsel that this is the way a suit is meant to be worded."
Connell said that an individual, not an insurance company, had to be named as a defendant.
"I adore this child. I would never want to hurt him. He would never want to hurt me," she told CNN
She had to do this in order to make her insurance scam claim work.
Quote:
"This was meant to be a simple homeowners insurance case," she said. "Connecticut law is such that I was advised by counsel that this is the way a suit is meant to be worded."
Connell said that an individual, not an insurance company, had to be named as a defendant.
"I adore this child. I would never want to hurt him. He would never want to hurt me," she told CNN
Link - ( New Window )
I'll buy idiotic bureaucracy over lunatic aunt any day. The former is pretty much acceptable behavior.
No, the father likely does. So why sue the kid? And why say 'he has to be accountable'. I have no doubt she was looking for an insurance payout, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt the insured. Their rates go up and yes, someone has to pay for it. I wish people didn't see insurance as a give away. We all pay for it. If it was for medical bills, no problem, their homeowners should pay. But not being able to hold a plate at a party? Go fuck yourself honey.
No, the father likely does. So why sue the kid? And why say 'he has to be accountable'. I have no doubt she was looking for an insurance payout, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt the insured. Their rates go up and yes, someone has to pay for it. I wish people didn't see insurance as a give away. We all pay for it. If it was for medical bills, no problem, their homeowners should pay. But not being able to hold a plate at a party? Go fuck yourself honey.
She had to do this in order to make her insurance scam claim work.
Quote:
"This was meant to be a simple homeowners insurance case," she said. "Connecticut law is such that I was advised by counsel that this is the way a suit is meant to be worded."
Connell said that an individual, not an insurance company, had to be named as a defendant.
"I adore this child. I would never want to hurt him. He would never want to hurt me," she told CNN
Link - ( New Window )
I'll buy idiotic bureaucracy over lunatic aunt any day. The former is pretty much acceptable behavior.
To my mind, the argument and ludicrousness of the suit and the contempt I have for her doesn't change a bit simply by changing the defendant.
it. That's the decent thing to do, especially if she didn't have health insurance. But is she suing above the cost of medical care? If so, that's fucked up.
And this does not help her cause:
"I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d’oeuvre plate,” she said."
That said, Madplaid, if that little bull of yours gores out one of my eyeballs with his felt horns...you in a heap o' trouble bwoi!
You may not like it, but that doesn't make the claim invalid. Someone gets injured in your home, you pay for their injuries.
The rest is stupid quotations and distractions. You all wouldn't be bitching if another 8 year old broke an arm in the house. Shit happens. It's why you have insurance.
then the insurance company provides the lawyer (because, after all, they are the one paying out). If it was medical bills, it likely would not come to a lawsuit. I once fell in a friends house and had to get some stitches. My health insurance wanted the name and address of my friend and I refused to give it to them.
But even if the insurance company is paying, we all pay the costs. That's why my homeowners insurance has trippled in 15 years without making any claims.
But even if the insurance company is paying, we all pay the costs. That's why my homeowners insurance has trippled in 15 years without making any claims.
What is your basis for saying that the 3rd party liability component is the reason general homeowners insurance rates have risen so much?
And not because of the increase in home prices? And not because of decreases in yields from investments for insurance reserves? And not because of of natural disasters? Because those are the factors that industry's own institute points to.
were why they rates were going up, or claims generally, including fire, flood etc claims? No mention of return on investment driving it, or increased cost of build, as the piece I linked mentions?
I just think he/you are wrong here. 3rd party liability insurance is just such a negligible piece of the homeowner insurance puzzle.
... Someone gets injured in your home, you pay for their injuries...
That's just not true. Someone gets injured in your home, you owe them nothing until and unless a jury says they were injured because YOU did something wrong (i.e. acted unreasonably / were negligent).
Let's have fun with some examples.
1. Someone is driving a car drunk, falls asleep at the wheel, and crashes into your living room whereupon a portion of the house wall falls onto his head causing some type of injury. The owner of the home doesn't owe him shit UNLESS some crazy jury (all you non-lawyers out there) decides that the homeowner was responsible.
2. Homeowner has his family over for the holidays. His 13 year old nephew is playing and runs down the basement steps with both hands full holding his favorite dolls. He trips and falls. The owner of the home doesn't owe him shit UNLESS some crazy jury (all you non-lawyers out there) decides that the homeowner was responsible.
3. Grandma is visiting and uses the bathroom. She decides it's a good time in life to see what it's like to pee like a man and doesn't sit on the toilet, but balances herself over the rim, falling right in (and breaking her leg). The owner of the home doesn't owe grandma shit UNLESS some crazy jury (all you non-lawyers out there) decides that the homeowner was responsible.
Forget that, I'm trying to see if I can get my nephew to give me a running hug, to see if I fall on my water polo shoulder and ring up the big bucks.
So she couldn't continue to give handjobs at the office parties?
Highly unlikely. If that were the case wouldn't she be bring action for custody or some sort of conservatorship with respect to the insurance proceeds for the child's benefit?
Quote:
jailed for assault on a defenseless lady? If this little shit doesn't get charged and wins this trial, you know he's going to continue on his heinous ways of getting overly excited about his relatives and showing them such affection. Think about all of the potential future victims!
Forget that, I'm trying to see if I can get my nephew to give me a running hug, to see if I fall on my water polo shoulder and ring up the big bucks.
Make sure it's one of your portly nephews. I bet that will make it almost a slam dunk that you'll get your big payout. And really, who does it hurt other than the home insurance company?
Probably because she's not a farmer. Cretin.
Quote:
However, after seeing the Mother's funeral announcement, I'm betting she's trying to get the insurance money away from the (possibly) abusive widower.
Highly unlikely. If that were the case wouldn't she be bring action for custody or some sort of conservatorship with respect to the insurance proceeds for the child's benefit?
What if he was only abusive to the Mother and there's no evidence he did anything to the kid?
Ahh, c'mon. The kid was just a little too excited.
Quote:
In comment 12547164 Peter in Atl said:
Quote:
However, after seeing the Mother's funeral announcement, I'm betting she's trying to get the insurance money away from the (possibly) abusive widower.
Highly unlikely. If that were the case wouldn't she be bring action for custody or some sort of conservatorship with respect to the insurance proceeds for the child's benefit?
What if he was only abusive to the Mother and there's no evidence he did anything to the kid?
Irrelevant. If she wins she gets to do anything with the proceeds she wishes, including spending it on herself. If she was out to protect the child she could actually strengthen her case by litigating to put the money in a trust or conservatorship to benefit the child.
Link - ( New Window )
Second was that all the women named Jennifer Connell are busy changing their names so they won't be asked when they meet people "Are YOU the Jennifer Connell that...."
Why should it be any different for the family kid?
Regardless, woman or not, she needs a nice solid slap upside the head...
“it was difficult to hold my hors d’oeuvre plate"
Gimme a GD break...
Joe Morrissey is still a barred attorney in the Commonwealth of Virginia, so his argument is invalid.
Quote:
“I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d’oeuvre plate,” she said.
Imagine rich in houston's law suit payout, based only on the pain and suffering!
How about this ....
[i]"But when he spotted Connell, he dropped the new bicycle on the ground, exclaiming, “Auntie Jen, Auntie Jen.”
“All of a sudden he was there in the air, I had to catch him and we tumbled onto the ground,” Connell testified of her encounter with the 50-pound boy. “I remember him shouting, ‘Auntie Jen I love you,’ and there he was flying at me.”
[i]
This can't be true.
I know he is 12 now but, the incident happened when he was 8 YEARS OLD.
Can an 8 year old be sued? Please tell me any Judge in the country can throw this out of court.
p.s. "The Daily Mail" (if it is the one from England) is the biggest F.O.S newspaper on the planet. This might be a crock.
Quote:
The injuries, losses and harms to the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the minor defendant in that a reasonable eight years old under those circumstances would know or should have known that a forceful greeting such as the one delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff could cause the harms and losses suffered by the plaintiff,” the lawsuit claims
Right or wrong, this shit right here is why people think lawyers are the scum of the fucking earth. The fact that someone actually took the time to write this garbage, knowing full well that it's all because an 8-year-old boy was happy to see his aunt on his birthday, is fucking despicable. What kind of shitstain subhuman would take this case?
I hope this wretched bitch slips on dog shit leaving her next dinner party and breaks her fucking hip. Maybe she can slap a lawsuit on the dog if she ever finds it.
I agree about the lawyers taking outrageous cases. But frankly they wouldn't take the cases if juries didn't award damages for this crap. And juries are YOU and ME. Not lawyers. And the really pathetic thing is - anyone gets hit in the rear in a car, and there are 20 friends and family telling him to "file a claim". That's what this woman is doing. She knows if she wins the homeowners insurance company pays.
So sure blame the asshole lawyer. I agree. But if you want to know the actual source of the real problem, be sure to look in the collective mirror.
It's not.
Quote:
Quote:
The injuries, losses and harms to the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the minor defendant in that a reasonable eight years old under those circumstances would know or should have known that a forceful greeting such as the one delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff could cause the harms and losses suffered by the plaintiff,” the lawsuit claims
Right or wrong, this shit right here is why people think lawyers are the scum of the fucking earth. The fact that someone actually took the time to write this garbage, knowing full well that it's all because an 8-year-old boy was happy to see his aunt on his birthday, is fucking despicable. What kind of shitstain subhuman would take this case?
I hope this wretched bitch slips on dog shit leaving her next dinner party and breaks her fucking hip. Maybe she can slap a lawsuit on the dog if she ever finds it.
I agree about the lawyers taking outrageous cases. But frankly they wouldn't take the cases if juries didn't award damages for this crap. And juries are YOU and ME. Not lawyers. And the really pathetic thing is - anyone gets hit in the rear in a car, and there are 20 friends and family telling him to "file a claim". That's what this woman is doing. She knows if she wins the homeowners insurance company pays.
So sure blame the asshole lawyer. I agree. But if you want to know the actual source of the real problem, be sure to look in the collective mirror.
I never report for jury duty, so it's not my fault.
The rest of y'all can get eff yourselves though.
Connell said that an individual, not an insurance company, had to be named as a defendant.
"I adore this child. I would never want to hurt him. He would never want to hurt me," she told CNN
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
"This was meant to be a simple homeowners insurance case," she said. "Connecticut law is such that I was advised by counsel that this is the way a suit is meant to be worded."
Connell said that an individual, not an insurance company, had to be named as a defendant.
"I adore this child. I would never want to hurt him. He would never want to hurt me," she told CNN
Link - ( New Window )
I'll buy idiotic bureaucracy over lunatic aunt any day. The former is pretty much acceptable behavior.
On a web cam, pls.
Quote:
She had to do this in order to make her insurance scam claim work.
Quote:
"This was meant to be a simple homeowners insurance case," she said. "Connecticut law is such that I was advised by counsel that this is the way a suit is meant to be worded."
Connell said that an individual, not an insurance company, had to be named as a defendant.
"I adore this child. I would never want to hurt him. He would never want to hurt me," she told CNN
Link - ( New Window )
I'll buy idiotic bureaucracy over lunatic aunt any day. The former is pretty much acceptable behavior.
And this does not help her cause:
"I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d’oeuvre plate,” she said."
That said, Madplaid, if that little bull of yours gores out one of my eyeballs with his felt horns...you in a heap o' trouble bwoi!
The rest is stupid quotations and distractions. You all wouldn't be bitching if another 8 year old broke an arm in the house. Shit happens. It's why you have insurance.
But even if the insurance company is paying, we all pay the costs. That's why my homeowners insurance has trippled in 15 years without making any claims.
But even if the insurance company is paying, we all pay the costs. That's why my homeowners insurance has trippled in 15 years without making any claims.
What is your basis for saying that the 3rd party liability component is the reason general homeowners insurance rates have risen so much?
And not because of the increase in home prices? And not because of decreases in yields from investments for insurance reserves? And not because of of natural disasters? Because those are the factors that industry's own institute points to.
Insurance Information Institute: Why Are Homeowners Insurance Rates Rising? - ( New Window )
I just think he/you are wrong here. 3rd party liability insurance is just such a negligible piece of the homeowner insurance puzzle.
You know what ... I think there might be a God after all.
That's just not true. Someone gets injured in your home, you owe them nothing until and unless a jury says they were injured because YOU did something wrong (i.e. acted unreasonably / were negligent).
Let's have fun with some examples.
1. Someone is driving a car drunk, falls asleep at the wheel, and crashes into your living room whereupon a portion of the house wall falls onto his head causing some type of injury. The owner of the home doesn't owe him shit UNLESS some crazy jury (all you non-lawyers out there) decides that the homeowner was responsible.
2. Homeowner has his family over for the holidays. His 13 year old nephew is playing and runs down the basement steps with both hands full holding his favorite dolls. He trips and falls. The owner of the home doesn't owe him shit UNLESS some crazy jury (all you non-lawyers out there) decides that the homeowner was responsible.
3. Grandma is visiting and uses the bathroom. She decides it's a good time in life to see what it's like to pee like a man and doesn't sit on the toilet, but balances herself over the rim, falling right in (and breaking her leg). The owner of the home doesn't owe grandma shit UNLESS some crazy jury (all you non-lawyers out there) decides that the homeowner was responsible.