Man Drags BIL to Court After “Prank” Sends Him to ER and Family Loses It

A Redditor’s family BBQ went from harmless fun to a medical emergency, a lawsuit, and a major family fallout.

One minute he was dozing off in a hammock. The next he was in the ER because his brother-in-law thought it would be funny to fill his belly button with super glue. A thousand-dollar ER copay turned into a $2,253 bill.

Then it turned into a small-claims lawsuit. Then it turned into a family civil war. His wife barely defended him. Her family called him dramatic. He felt like the villain for wanting his medical cost covered.

But he didn’t prank anyone. He didn’t cause an injury. He didn’t choose any of this.

So was the lawsuit too far, or was it the only reasonable move left?

Now, read the full story:

This wasn’t a prank. This was an injury, a hospital visit, and a medical bill. The husband didn’t wake up laughing. He woke up in pain, confused, and stuck with a $2,253 consequence. That isn’t harmless fun. It’s a grown man choosing to damage another person’s body and then refusing to take responsibility.

What hurts most isn’t the glue. It’s the family dynamic. When a partner doesn’t fully defend you, it creates a lonely kind of ache that sticks deeper than super glue ever could. He tried to resolve it privately. He tried to stay fair. Court became the last option because the person who caused the damage refused to do the right thing.

This feeling of abandonment is textbook when families protect the troublemaker instead of the one who got hurt.

Let’s unpack why this prank crossed ethical and psychological lines.

Superglue may sound harmless in casual conversation, but medically and psychologically, this situation carries serious implications. Pranks that involve bodily harm fall outside the category of social humor. They sit closer to what psychologists call “aggressive humor,” which masks hostility under the cover of a joke.

According to research from the International Journal of Humor Studies, aggressive humor often serves as a socially acceptable outlet for disrespect, dominance, or unresolved tension.

The brother-in-law acted while sober. This matters. Alcohol didn’t lower his inhibition. He made a deliberate decision to tamper with another person’s body. Even small adhesives can cause skin tears, infections, chemical burns, or scarring.

The fact that OP previously underwent surgery and had scarring around his navel increased his risk. The ER intervention wasn’t optional. It was medically necessary.

The American Academy of Dermatology emphasizes that cyanoacrylate glues can bond instantly to sensitive tissue and trap bacteria below the skin. Trying to peel it off at home can cause tearing, infection, or trauma to surgical scar tissue. Professional treatment is often required. This is exactly what OP faced. The ER cost was predictable and unavoidable.

Family members defending the prank reveal another dynamic: minimization. In family systems theory, minimization often appears when a group protects a “golden child” or a person perceived as fragile.

OP’s wife said her brother was between jobs and in a divorce. Her first instinct was to protect him from consequences, not to protect her own partner from pain. This form of emotional loyalty conflict often forces the spouse into an uncomfortable corner.

Furthermore, blaming ADHD for this behavior is inaccurate and harmful. ADHD does not make a person superglue someone’s body as a prank. ADHD may affect impulse control, but impulse control issues do not cause targeted harmful actions that involve preparation, materials, and intentional contact.

Mental health professionals warn against using diagnoses as shields for accountability. Doing so hurts actual ADHD patients by reinforcing damaging stereotypes.

From a legal standpoint, OP acted appropriately. Small claims court exists for situations exactly like this: clear harm, clear cost, clear responsibility. The brother-in-law admitted to the act. The ER bill was a direct result of that act. Judges rule based on liability, not family politics. OP won because the law recognized this as damages caused by another adult.

Financially, OP showed compassion. He refused to garnish wages. He refused to take money from his mother-in-law because she is on a fixed income. He pursued the person who caused the problem. This contradicts the family’s narrative that he is selfish or dramatic.

The emotional fallout is painful but predictable. Families often push victims to “smooth things over” because accountability creates discomfort. The truth is simple: someone hurt OP, refused to fix it, and then acted offended when consequences arrived.

Long-term, OP needs alignment with his partner. Marriage therapists stress the importance of spousal solidarity during external conflict. When a spouse chooses their family’s feelings over their partner’s wellbeing, trust erodes.

The real conversation should shift from the prank to the marriage. Does OP’s wife understand the physical harm he endured? Does she understand the emotional impact? Does she understand the financial burden?

Healing requires her to step toward him, not toward the brother.

In summary, OP handled this responsibly. The prank crossed physical, ethical, and legal boundaries. Court was a last resort, not an overreaction. Accountability is not cruelty. It is fairness.

Check out how the community responded:

Many commenters called this a__ault, not a prank, and fully supported OP.

Others criticized OP’s wife and said she should have defended him.

Others reacted with humor or disbelief but still agreed OP wasn’t wrong.

This story highlights how quickly a “joke” becomes a violation when harm enters the picture. OP didn’t set out to punish anyone. He simply wanted his medical bill covered after someone else caused the injury. The court agreed. The facts agreed. The only people who didn’t were the ones protecting the person who created the mess.

Family loyalty becomes twisted when accountability feels inconvenient. But OP protected his health, his finances, and his dignity. His next step isn’t figuring out whether he was wrong. It’s deciding how to rebuild trust with a spouse who didn’t fully stand beside him when it mattered.

What do you think? Did OP handle this the right way? And how would you react if a partner sided with their sibling over your literal medical injury?