Woman Wins $200K Verdict Over Bank Tube
Table of Contents
Case Background
The case of Andrea Reilly, formerly known as Andrea Wood, v. Ion Bank took place from an unusual and painful accident at a drive-up banking facility in Prospect, Connecticut. On December 9, 2022, Reilly went to the Ion Bank branch on Waterbury Road to complete a routine banking transaction using the drive-through system. What should have been a quick stop ended with a serious hand and arm injury that led her to file a negligence lawsuit against the bank.
Reilly, a local resident of Prospect, claimed the accident was caused by the careless actions of an Ion Bank employee operating the pneumatic tube system a common drive-up feature used to send canisters between customers and tellers. Her lawsuit was filed in July 2023 in the Waterbury Judicial District of the Connecticut Superior Court.
Cause
According to Reilly’s complaint, the accident happened when she returned the empty canister to its holder at the drive-up tube. Just as she placed it on the holder but before she had released her grip an Ion Bank employee inside the branch pressed the button that activates the vacuum-powered air compressor. The system immediately created a powerful suction, pulling the canister, and with it, Reilly’s hand and arm into the tube.
She alleged that this sudden and forceful pull injured her left arm, shoulder, neck, and hand. Her claim was that Ion Bank, through its employees, failed to operate the drive-up system safely, and that the incident was entirely preventable if basic precautions had been followed.
The Negligence Allegations
Reilly’s complaint outlined several ways in which Ion Bank’s employees were negligent:
They failed to make sure her hand was safely away from the tube before recalling the canister.
They did not wait until she had driven away before pressing the return button.
They failed to watch where her hand was positioned.
They gave no warning that the canister was being recalled.
They failed to ensure the safety door was closed before activating the vacuum system.
In essence, her case argued that the bank’s employee acted too quickly and without checking whether it was safe to do so.
Injury
The accident left Reilly with multiple injuries to her neck, shoulder, and arm. She listed her conditions in detail: cervical spine strain and sprain, radiculopathy, a cervical disc herniation, left upper extremity pain, numbness and tingling, shoulder pain, and finger pain. She also reported persistent headaches, emotional distress, and an increased risk of future complications.
Doctors diagnosed her with injuries affecting bones, ligaments, and nerves. Her complaint said the effects were likely to be permanent. She also claimed the injuries caused significant pain, emotional anguish, and the loss of enjoyment in her normal life activities.
Reilly stated that she had spent and would continue to spend large amounts of money on medical care, therapy, and medication. She also claimed lost income and a diminished earning capacity due to her physical limitations after the incident.
Damages
Reilly sought money damages exceeding $15,000, the jurisdictional minimum for a Connecticut Superior Court case. The exact amount was left for the jury to decide, but her request included compensation for:
Past and future medical expenses
Lost wages and future loss of earning capacity
Pain, suffering, and emotional distress
Loss of life’s enjoyment and daily activities
Legal costs and any additional relief the Court deemed fair
Her attorneys emphasized that her injuries were not temporary, and that her life had been permanently altered by a moment of inattention at the bank.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Andrea Reilly, formerly known as Andrea Wood
Counsel for Plaintiff: Thomas P. Pettinicchi
Experts for Plaintiff: Jason Rizza | Tamer Ghaly | Philip A. Micalizz | Isaac Moss
Defendant: Ion Bank
Counsel for Defendant: Jill Hallihan
Experts for Defendant: Ruhi Arslanoglu
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Reilly’s attorney argued that the accident was the direct result of an employee’s failure to use reasonable care while operating the pneumatic system. He told the jury that a customer using a drive-up facility should never have to fear being injured by the bank’s own equipment.
He walked the jury through how the pneumatic system worked, explaining that a brief delay or a simple verbal confirmation would have prevented the accident entirely. He presented evidence showing that the employee pressed the recall button too soon, while Reilly’s hand was still inside the opening, causing the suction to pull her arm into the metal housing.
Her attorney described how the injuries affected her life how she experienced pain with even small tasks and how her fear of reinjury continued long after the incident.
Defense
Ion Bank’s defense attorney denied all allegations of negligence. The bank admitted it operated the drive-up system but denied it had acted carelessly. In its formal answer, Ion Bank argued it lacked sufficient information to confirm many of Reilly’s claims and left her to prove them at trial.
The bank’s primary defense rested on contributory negligence. It claimed Reilly herself failed to pay attention and take precautions. The defense asserted that she had been inattentive, had not kept proper watch over her surroundings, and should have been aware of how close her hand was to the tube when returning the canister.
Ion Bank’s lawyers argued that its employees followed normal procedure and that the drive-up equipment was functioning as intended. They emphasized that accidents sometimes occur despite reasonable care, and that the bank should not be held liable for an unforeseeable event.
Jury Verdict
After reviewing the testimony and evidence, the jury deliberated on whether Ion Bank was negligent and whether its negligence caused Reilly’s injuries. The panel also considered the defense’s argument that Reilly bore some responsibility for her own accident.
The jury ultimately found Ion Bank liable for the accident, determining that the employee’s actions directly caused Reilly’s injuries. However, they also found comparative negligence on Reilly’s part, assigning her a small portion of fault for not being more cautious at the drive-up window.
The jury awarded Reilly a total economic damage of $64,500 and a total of non-economic damage of 135,500. The total amount awarded was $200,000 in damages. The amount covered her medical expenses, lost wages, and compensation for her pain and suffering. Because of the partial fault assigned to her, the award was reduced slightly under Connecticut’s comparative negligence law.