Four years after her wrist was accidentally broken when she was attending a birthday party, a Manhattan woman is suing the person she thinks is responsible. Her nephew who was 8 years old at that time. https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/ma...ntally-breaking-183752156-us-weekly.html?nf=1 What does she want? She wants ca$h. $127,000. But why wait until the boy's mother is dead before she sues him? Do any of you think the court will make a ruling in her favor?
I think that this story is insane. So she got a broken wrist and after 4 years she want to sue the nephew? Is there a legal base for this??
This story makes me feel pretty sick. What sort of person is she to sue her nephew after his mum, her sister, has died? There is so much wrong with this that it's like something you would see out of a sitcom. If it goes to court I hope the judge laughs in that woman's face and she has to pay all the court charges. What a disgusting human being.
This is ridiculous. I am assuming that the mother left some money to her son and now she is looking to get her share. Who in their right mind would sue their nephew and then to wait 4 years and until his mom is dead. I would say that it is all being done out of greed. Death will bring out the greed in people I just went through it in my family so nothing ceases to amaze me now!
Well, in all fairness, there are some details that you'd have to know before making an opinion: Look: http://foxct.com/2015/10/14/aunt-who-sued-nephew-speaks-out-says-she-was-forced-to-go-to-trial/
I have read that article and I still have the same opinion. I know I could never sue my nephew or any family for that matter. To each their own I guess. I do understand her wanting to have her medical bills paid but I don't know. I just don't understand it.
So she's either insane or something happened between her and the family and she's getting revenge for it. And if I understand correctly, she let 3 years go by before she sued? What's that about? Just a crazy case and I doubt she will win at all.
I've been following this story and the jury didn't find for her (no surprise) but news reports omitted things and only when she lost the case did she reveal other bits of information. It appears that her medical didn't cover it or they told her to claim on the insurance of the home owner where the incident took place. Apparently the insurance company did offer her $1 but she turned that down. Obviously her claim must have been excessive, and no one has asked why her own medical didn't cover it. As a HR Manager and an employee she would have had medical, (otherwise she would be a poor HR Manager) so no one has answered why her own coverage didn't pay. Despite her saying she had to because it was to force the insurance to pay up, the chances of her wining were remote, so I guess as she lives in the Upper East Side of Manhattan she will find another way to pay.
