Skip to content

Woman sues 11-year-old Little Leaguer who accidently hit her with thrown ball

Jun 22, 2012, 2:16 PM EDT

littleleaguegrass Getty Images

Matthew Migliaccio was playing catcher, warming up his pitcher in the bullpen during a Little League game, when his return throw accidentally went over the pitcher’s head and struck a woman in the face who was sitting nearby. So the woman, Elizabeth Lloyd, is doing the normal thing — she’s suing an 11-year-old for $150,000. She’s also seeking an undefined additional amount for pain and suffering.

The lawsuit filed April 24 alleges Migliaccio’s errant throw was intentional and reckless, “assaulted and battered” Lloyd and caused “severe, painful and permanent” injuries.

Oh, and Lloyd’s husband has filed a separate lawsuit, claiming the loss of “services, society and consortium” of his wife. In legalese, “loss of consortium” means, I think, he’s no longer getting sex.

They’ve demanded a jury trial. As John Cleese (as Robin Hood) said in Time Bandits: “What awful people.”

This all happened in Manchester Township, N.J. Manchester Little League has accident insurance, but that only covers players and coaches, so they have denied coverage. The attorney for the player’s family is, as you may have guessed, somewhat indignant.

“I just think that it’s disgusting that you have people suing an 11-year-old kid for overthrowing his pitcher in the bullpen,” Anthony Pagano, a lawyer for the Migliaccio family, said. “It’s horrible this can actually happen and get this far. Ultimately, hopefully, justice will prevail.”

The lawsuit claims that Matthew was throwing the ball in a “reckless and negligent” manner, when in fact his father said he wasn’t horsing around, but just warming up the pitcher as his coach told him to do. One throw happened to get away … and if that’s a basis for a lawsuit, then the Giants are in serious trouble.

H/T myopinionisrighterthanyours.

  1. trentofgilead - Jun 22, 2012 at 6:46 PM

    Everyone wants their quick payday. Sad.

  2. t16rich - Jun 22, 2012 at 8:14 PM

    You know you’re sucking at life when…… you’re too stupid to pay attention, so you sue an 11 year old. Karma, feel free to step in and handle this woman.

    • charliebrain - Jun 24, 2012 at 3:36 AM

      I think the 11 year old should counter sue her for not wearing her bubble suit and helmet that day! I bet she wore her seatbelt to the game.

  3. myopinionisrighterthanyours - Jun 22, 2012 at 8:31 PM

    The biggest jerk here is the lawyer who took up this case. He/she HAS to know about “inherent risk” and that this stands near zero chance if it goes to trial (hence, why they are seeking a “Stella” jury that will award someone $1.7 million because they set the cruise control in their RV and then went back to make a sandwich … LEAVING NO DRIVER. Stella was the lady who successfully sued McDonald’s over a hot cup of coffee.). They are hoping this kid’s parent’s settle, and, unfortunately, it sounds like that’s where they are leaning. Hopefully attention like this will help justice prevail. Thanks for posting, Rick. Knew you’d be able to add your unique touch to this grotesque display of a lack of common sense and human decency.

    • grudenthediva - Jun 24, 2012 at 5:44 PM

      Ah, how refreshing, another knee-jerk commenter who still believes the whole “old woman nets a frivolous payday because of hot coffee” myth!

      Thanks to you people, attorneys everywhere always have something to laugh about at the bars/CLE dinners.

      • lionsownyou - Jun 24, 2012 at 10:13 PM

        That did happen. I remember reading about it. You have no clue what you’re talking about.

  4. allmyteamsareterrible - Jun 22, 2012 at 11:33 PM

    What a scum bag loser. How slimy people like this sleep at night is beyond me.

  5. ramitbaby - Jun 23, 2012 at 7:07 PM

    “Stella” deserved every penny she was awarded in her lawsuit against McDonalds. If u disagree, I suggest you watch the documentary “Hot Coffee”. Her burns were horrific and McDonalds had some 700 previous complaints about the extreme temperature of their coffee.

    • myopinionisrighterthanyours - Jun 23, 2012 at 7:32 PM

      I’m sorry. No one deserves a cent off of their own stupidity. I don’t doubt the severity of her burns. The problem is they were a direct result of HER negligence, not Mickey D’s.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jun 23, 2012 at 11:10 PM

        You don’t know enough about the McDonald’s case. They were repeatedly warned that their coffee was set too hot. When you dig into why the coffee was so hot you will realize it’s McDonald’s that was negligent.

        But, yeah, you’re brilliant.

        • grudenthediva - Jun 24, 2012 at 5:47 PM

          C’mon, koufax. Justice Scalia here can drop “inherent risk” to try and sound like a JD wielding scholar but that doesn’t apply to exceedingly scalding coffee of which McDonald’s had prior and repeated notice. These types have been entertaining the myth for decades now, so no amount of facts (or actually reading the facts of the case itself) can make them budge. Best to just let them beat their knuckles into the wall and move on.