Juarez-Montiel, Liliana, By And Through Her Guardi v. Comeau-Russell, Siobhan Et Al
- Court: Connecticut State, Superior Court
- Case number: NNH-CV23-6131629-S
- Filed: April 5, 2023
- Judge: Elizabeth Stewart and Matthew Frechette
- Case type: T61 – Torts – Animals – Dog
Parties Involved
- Plaintiff: Liliana Juarez-Montiel By And Through Her Guardian And Next of Friend Nadina Juarez-Montiel PPA Nadina Juarez-Montiel
- Counsel for Plaintiff: Nugent & Bryant
- Expert Witnesses for Plaintiff: Animal Control Officer David A. Carney | EFK of Connecticut d/b/a Nelson Ambulance | Yale Medicine | Yale New Haven Hospital – ER | Children’s Medical Group, LLC | Connecticut Children’s Hospital – ER
- Defendant: Siobhan Comeau-Russell | Kristina Comeau-Russell
- Counsel for Defendant: Meehan DI Palma Roberts & Turret Law Off
Verdict Information
- Verdict date: April 4, 2024
- Total damages awarded to the Plaintiff: $145,000.00
About the Case
Cause
The plaintiff Liliana Juarez-Montiel, a minor, had brought this action through her guardian, Nadina Juarez-Montiel. On June 23, 2021, and for some time prior, the defendants Siobhan Comeau-Russell and Kristina Comeau-Russell had owned and kept two dogs under Connecticut General Statutes Section 22-357. At approximately 6:00 p.m. on that date, Liliana had visited the defendants’ home at 19 Palmieri Place, North Haven, Connecticut. During the visit, the defendants’ Great Dane dogs attacked Liliana, knocking her down, biting her multiple times, and causing injuries.
At the time of the attack, Liliana had not been trespassing, committing a tort, or teasing the dogs. Prior to the attack, the defendants had known or should have known of their dogs’ vicious tendencies. The minor plaintiff’s injuries, losses, and damages had resulted from the defendants’ negligence and carelessness. The defendants had failed to control their dogs and exercise reasonable care. They had also neglected to take necessary precautions to restrain the dogs. Moreover, they had failed to notify the plaintiff that the dogs might attack her. Subsequently, a lawsuit had been filed alleging the defendants’ liability for the attack and resulting injuries under Section 22-357 of the Connecticut General Statutes.
Injury
As a result of the attack and the defendant’s negligence, the minor plaintiff had suffered serious injuries to her head, face, left ear, right arm, and shoulders. She had also sustained injuries to her elbows, chest, knees, neck, and back, including abrasions, lacerations, scratches, bites, and puncture wounds. Additionally, she had suffered a head injury causing a concussion, as well as neck and back injuries. Furthermore, due to the attack and treatment, she had experienced physical pain, stiffness, headaches, stress, and worry. She had also suffered permanent, disfiguring scars on her chest, leg, arm, and back, which caused her stress and worry.
As another result of the attack and injuries, she had incurred and might incur future expenses for emergency, hospital, and medical care. These expenses included potential costs for scar revision surgery or other methods. Her enjoyment of life activities had been diminished due to the injuries and scars.
Damages
The amount in demand was in excess of $15,000 exclusive of costs and interest. As a result of the damages caused by the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff prayed for the damages, costs and such other relief as the Court deemed fit. They also requested for a trial by jury.
Jury Verdict
On April 4, 2024, a Connecticut jury found that the defendant’s violation of Connecticut General Statutes Section 22-357 was the proximate cause of the injuries and losses suffered by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff was awarded $145,000.00 as past and future non-economic damages for the physical pain, scarring, suffering, trauma, emotional pain and loss of ability to enjoy life’s pleasures. Accordingly, Hon. Matthew Frechette entered a final judgment upholding the jury verdict on April 16, 2024.
Court Documents:
Leave A Comment