A Connecticut state court judge has checked a hockey mom into the glass, dismissing her lawsuit, which claimed that another mom assaulted her after she confronted the defendant’s son for roughing up her own son.
The court ruled specifically that the plaintiff “has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is liable for intentionally assaulting her.”
“This case arises from two mothers dispensing with the time-honored notion of playground justice and taking matters between their sons into their own hands,” began the judge.
The incident occurred on Feb. 23, 2008, and conflicting testimony suggested that Madeline Fromageot of Trumbull became incensed when her 7-year-old son was knocked to the ice by the defendant’s 10-year-old son. She approached the Joan Bennett’s son when he came off the ice and allegedly put her hand on his face mask. She then pushed his head back and told him to leave her son alone.
One of the witnesses testified that he “saw a lady walk over fairly angry and I saw her walk into the box, which was extremely unusual because only coaches are allowed in the box … I saw her grab (Bennett’s son’s) head. I could hear her slam his head against the glass multiple times. I could hear it ping off the Plexiglas, and I saw her do it also.”
In response, Bennett allegedly ran over to the bench area to confront the plaintiff. She repeatedly asked the plaintiff, “What did you do?” The plaintiff did not answer. Exasperated, the defendant threw up her hands, knocking the plaintiff’s headband off her head.
In its analysis, the court wrote that the assault must be “intentional” to be actionable. Sansone v. Bechtel, 180 Conn. 96, 99, 429 A.2d 820 (1980). Further, “not only the action producing the injury but the resulting injury must be intentional. A willful or malicious injury is one caused by design.” Markey v. Santangelo, supra 195 Conn. 77-78.
The plaintiff failed to satisfy that threshold, according to the court.
“Specifically, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant’s contact with her headband was the direct and immediate consequence of a force exerted by the defendant intentionally,” wrote the court. There was no credible proof that the defendant’s conduct was intentional or that the defendant actually or impliedly designed to injure the plaintiff in making such contact.
“Rather, the better and weightier evidence shows that the defendant threw her hands up out of her frustration from the plaintiff’s total lack of response to her questions relating to her son and knocked the plaintiff’s loose-fitting headband off her head.”
Bennett’s lawyer, Arthur Laske III, told the media that the judge’s decision was a “vindication of common sense and our system of justice. … The plaintiff’s case didn’t belong in the witness box, it belonged in the penalty box.”
Fromageot v. Bennett; Super. Ct. Conn.; CV095022939; 9/28/11
