NJ Woman suing little leaguer

www.nj.com...

Elizabeth Lloyd of Manchester filed the suit against Matthew Migliaccio, 13, in April after she was unable to reach a settlement with insurance companies. Migliaccio, a catcher, was warming up a pitcher in the bullpen when he tossed a ball that hit the 45-year-old woman in May 2010, according to the report. She was sitting at a picnic table about five feet from the fenced-in bullpen and says she had to undergo reconstructive surgery after sufferinng a broken orbital bone. Lloyd also says she suffers from headaches.

What the # is our country coming to? Suing a damn child because YOU chose to be at a baseball field, and got hit by a ball? I understand she needs her medical bills paid, but I hope to God a judge throws this bull# out of court, our judges have enough frivolous lawsuits to deal with

POS insurance companies. Glad to take your money for something you hope you never have to use. Moment you need them, ah . So many bull# industries in this country.

I am not sure how well this suit will work out.

Leagues are only required to have insurance for players and coaches, not spectators.

There is a reason for this. At any professional sporting event, if you read the back of the ticket stub, there is a notice about flying balls, hockey pucks, etc etc and that the individual assume any risk that comes with attending a sporting event.

Now obviously this is little league, so the chances that tickets are sold is minimal, but still if you are attending an event where balls are thrown, hit, etc etc.. there is an obvious, common sense risk involved. You should be aware at all times of what is happening around you. Hopefully the courts will see it that way as well.

I can understand the women wanting her medical cost to be covered, but suing a 13 year old is really just low on so many levels.

reply to post by CoolStoryMan


Yet another frivolous lawsuit that will most certainly be thrown out (if the judge has common sense).

Does she really think that a 13 year old can pay her? What the # is he going to pay her with? Baseball cards and soda pop?

Wow, I can see how she might be mad about getting hit with a ball, but really? Everyone's always looking for something to sue about.

A woman i used to work with went to a local Riverdogs game here and got hit smack between the eyes with a runaway fastball. She got knocked right out and had to get stitches. She still has quite a scar.

LIke a post above me was talking about, she was not able to sue because the tickets came with a waiver. Rogue balls and bats coming at you may not be a common occurrence but should be expected.

She can sue the sun for giving her cancer too if the time ever comes. This is ludicrous and she is one of many in our overly litigious society.

Anyone here remember being in school, getting in a fight, or playing dodgeball and having your glasses broken, nose broken, etc.? Back in the "olden" days, you sucked it up because "Things Happen". You were aware that it could happen and took responsibility upon yourself when it did because you decided to take that chance.

She might want her bills paid, but if she is smart enough to work the system, then she is surely smart enough to know what personal responsibility is and have enough thought left over to realize one can get hurt where balls are being thrown.

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
POS insurance companies. Glad to take your money for something you hope you never have to use. Moment you need them, ah . So many bull# industries in this country.

I can back this up
My aunt has severe dental problems right now, dating back to a bike accident(shes missing front teeth, some are crooked to) and you know what the insurance company said? they won't cover it because it's "cosmetic" procedure, when anyone with an ounce of common sense can see plain as day she needs her teeth fixed for health reasons.

this is why I refuse to buy health insurance, and I'll be damned if Barry tries to make me

She sounds like one of those people who use vexatious litigation to live off others.

From: www.answers.com...

A legal action or proceeding initiated maliciously and without probable cause by an individual who is not acting in good faith for the purpose of annoying or embarrassing an opponent.
The U.S. legal system permits persons to file civil lawsuits to seek redress for injuries committed by a defendant. However, a legal action that is not likely to lead to any practical result is classified as vexatious litigation. Such litigation is regarded as frivolous and will result in the dismissal of the action by the court. A person who has been subjected to vexatious litigation may sue the plaintiff for malicious prosecution, seeking damages for any costs and injuries associated with the original lawsuit.
Litigation is typically classified as vexatious when an attorney or a pro se litigant (a person representing himself without an attorney) repeatedly files groundless lawsuits and repeatedly loses. Under the common law, the frequent incitement of lawsuits by an attorney constituted the crime of barratry. In modern law, however, barratry is viewed as an archaic crime and is rarely enforced. Attorneys who encourage vexatious litigation are subject to discipline for violating rules of professional conduct and may be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred.
Sometimes pro se litigants who have lost their initial lawsuits file new actions based on the dispute contained in the original suit. Because the judgment of the original case is dispositive, a court will ultimately dismiss these new actions. To avoid the expenditure of court resources, as well as the costs associated with the defendant's defense of repeated frivolous claims, a court may issue an order forbidding the pro se litigant to file any new actions without permission of the court.
Vexatious litigation is a type of malicious prosecution that enables the defendant to file a tort action against the plaintiff. A plaintiff in a malicious prosecution must prove that a legal proceeding (or multiple proceedings) was instituted by the defendant, that the original proceeding was terminated in favor of the plaintiff, that there was no probable cause for the original proceeding, and that malice, or a primary purpose other than that of bringing the original action, motivated the defendant. A plaintiff in such an action may recover, for example, the expenses incurred in defending the original suit or suits, as well as resulting financial loss or injury. A plaintiff may also recover damages for mental suffering of a kind that would normally be expected to follow from the original action.


I hope she loses and incurres all the court costs as well.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Loses, incurs all costs AND spends a day or two in a jail cell.

If the judge knew what he/she were doing, this would happen!

Just when I think I may have found a little faith in humanity.........

reply to post by The Sword


One of the few times we agree...

The world must be coming to a end.

Take care

HAHHAHA, what a POS.

If you notice kids in baseball gear warming up, you should probably keep an eye out for rogue balls.

Common sense.

Too bad it wasn't a foul tip from a fastball, at least she'd have a reason to piss and moan.

I dont know, if I was sitting in a park and someone threw a baseball and it broke bones in my face requiring surgery I'd want my medical bills paid also.