Friend was injured while we were intoxicated and wants me to pay his medical bills

[altharn]

Illinois

A friend and I were hanging out at his house. We were both intoxicated. We were having a fun time. He started punching me in the arm and then I retaliated by punching him in the balls. He was out of work for a week due to pain. He has also had several medical bills for this. He is demanding that I cover his medical bills and if I do not cover his medical bills he will sue. Can he sue for this? Thank you for your advice.

 

[LdiJ]

A friend and I were hanging out at his house. We were both intoxicated. We were having a fun time. He started punching me in the arm and then I retaliated by punching him in the balls. He was out of work for a week due to pain. He has also had several medical bills for this. He is demanding that I cover his medical bills and if I do not cover his medical bills he will sue. Can he sue for this? Thank you for your advice.

Anybody can sue anybody for anything. The question is whether or not they can win. In this instance, I have no basis upon which to form an opinion. It does seem a bit excessive to punch someone in the balls in retaliation for being punched in the arm.

 

[Just Blue]

A friend and I were hanging out at his house. We were both intoxicated. We were having a fun time. He started punching me in the arm and then I retaliated by punching him in the balls. He was out of work for a week due to pain. He has also had several medical bills for this. He is demanding that I cover his medical bills and if I do not cover his medical bills he will sue. Can he sue for this? Thank you for your advice.

You didn't provide the state this happened in....without that information we can't tell you if ball bustin' is a appropriate response to an arm punch.

 

[altharn]

You didn't provide the state this happened in....without that information we can't tell you if ball bustin' is a appropriate response to an arm punch.

sorry, i added it to the post. It is in illinois.

 

[adjusterjack]

Another example of booze and stupidity.

Yes, not only can he sue you, there is an excellent chance that he will win and, if he does win, the court might add an additional amount for pain and suffering to the bills.

You can pay him, or pay a lawyer and then still have to pay him. Looks like you are between a rock and a hard place.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Yes, not only can he sue you, there is an excellent chance that he will win and, if he does win, the court might add an additional amount for pain and suffering to the bills.

Yes, certainly the friend can sue althran, but I disagree with your assessment that there is "an excellent chance he will win." This is a circumstance in which, with the few facts we have, it is not possible to say with any real certainty how likely it is that the friend would win. The general rule in the U.S. is that in a mutual combat situation each party is responsible for the damages he causes to the others. However, I've not found case law in IL that says that state subscribes to that general view. But even if it does altharn might well be able to persuade a jury that it was not mutual combat and that it was instead simply self defense or might have some other defense. Or the altharn might just convince the jury that since they were both drunk and idiots that they each ought to just pay for their own injuries and leave it at that. I can tell you that in cases I've seen in my state the results varied widely. A whole lot depends on the jury members' impression of the two combatants and the skill of their lawyers in advancing their side of the story.

If altharn gets sued, then he ought to see a civil litigation attorney to see how strong a defense he has here. Until then, he ought not admit any liability for this to anyone and ought not give out his version of the story as that might be used against him. It may well be that he never gets sued for this. The damages the friend has may simply not be high enough for any lawyer to be willing to take this on a contingency fee basis anyway.

 

[NeilTheCop]

Another example of booze and stupidity.

Yes, not only can he sue you, there is an excellent chance that he will win and, if he does win, the court might add an additional amount for pain and suffering to the bills.

You can pay him, or pay a lawyer and then still have to pay him. Looks like you are between a rock and a hard place.

Not sure about an excellent chance to win.
From the original post there are no witnesses, so it's going to be a word against word case.

 

[xylene]

I don't know you! That's my purse.

Ask you friend how much to wants as a final settlement and if it is reasonable take it and BEING SURE to get a release (have a lawyer draw it up)

Consider that you are very lucky that you actions didn't result in extremely serious damage.

People sue for a lot over loss of fertility or emasculation.

Testicular torsion is not a joke.

 

[Just Blue]

sorry, i added it to the post. It is in illinois.

Thank You.

What were his damages....ie....what injuries did you cause? What were your damages? Were you hospitalized, have x-rays? Broken bones?

 

[commentator]

From the sound and description of this, I am not able to visualize it, as in you are not coming across as very believable. But let me get clarification. Yes, I know it shouldn't matter, but by any chance, are you a female? We already know he's a male.

Since he did not press charges at the time of the incident, I honestly don't expect a court of law, should he decide to go through with this, would be very willing to hear anything like this or would judge him too kindly should he sue, particularly if its a male vs.female situation.

If he is in such dire financial straits that he is threatening you because of the loss of a week's work (hope he's got medical necessity proven and documented on this one) and "a couple of medical bills" he's probably bluffing.

Also, if you did this much damage, this must've been one whale of a lick you gave him. And while drunkards are notoriously immune to pain, this must've been a much more escalated situation than "he socked me on the arm, so I hit him in the balls" scenario. In a he said/she said where both parties were the only witnesses, and the judge is looking for believability, somehow, this whole story doesn't hang together well from this side.

I actually once knew of a case where a person was sued for a fight situation in which he ruptured testicles on the other party, in addition to other injuries and the other party incurred large medical bills. The suit was pretty much thrown out with no relief. But that thing of "it was just two drunks fighting" may be inherent to my Southern states mentality. The common around here is yes, you can beat hell out of another person as long as you do it without any other witnesses around.

 

[quincy]

The state of Illinois recognizes a defense of mutual combat.

From The People of the State of Illinois v. Peggy Austin, the Court said: “In considering whether defendants have met the threshold burden of proving some evidence of mutual combat, it has been held that the alleged provocation on the part of the victim must cause the same passionate state of mind in an ordinary person under the same circumstances.”

The key to the defense is whether the response to the provocation is reasonable and adequate.

https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/1990/67282-7.html

From Austin, a murder trial where mutual combat was used as a defense: “Passion on the part of the slayer, no matter how violent, will not relieve her of liability for murder unless it is engendered by a provocation which the law recognizes as being reasonable and adequate.”

There are not enough facts provided here to know if punching the fellow in the balls was a reasonable and adequate response to a hit on the arm. If yes, altharn could escape having to pay medical expenses. If no, altharn might find himself with hospital bills to pay. How hefty the bills are depend on the injury suffered.

Because the “combatants” were friends, both drunk, and “having a fun time,” a mutual combat defense potentially could work to relieve altharn of liability.

 

[Zigner]

...somehow, this whole story doesn't hang together well from this side.

I see what you did there...

 

[Just Blue]

Thwocking someone in the arm should not result in one ending up in the ER with crushed nads.

 

[quincy]

Thwocking someone in the arm should not result in one ending up in the ER with crushed nads.

The fact they were both drunk and having a fun time at the time of the injury potentially could help altharn.

There are way too many facts missing to say for sure whether, if sued, altharn would be found liable for all medical expenses incurred as a result of their drunken “play.” I don’t think it unreasonable, whatever the facts, for the victim to expect altharn to at least help with medical expenses. But for altharn’s response to a hit on the arm, there would have been no injury.

This is assuming that the injury actually occurred during good-natured drunken play and not an argument.

For more Illinois cases, see People v. Jones, People v. Thompson.

 

[Taxing Matters]

The state of Illinois recognizes a defense of mutual combat.

It does in criminal cases, like the one you cited. That's not uncommon for states to do that. But in the world of civil lawsuits, the common law in most states is that in mutual combat each party is responsible for the harm caused to the other. I did not in a quick search find if IL has case law on the matter that either adopts the majority view or instead takes a different position. It would be necessary, though, to look at the civil cases for this; the criminal case decisions will not give you that.