LAWYERING UP

From THE TIMES-TRIBUNE:

Josephine M. Coccetti and Earl J. Coccetti, an Archbald couple, are suing the bishop of the Diocese of Scranton for failing to monitor the parking lot and remove snow and ice that caused Mrs. Coccetti to fall on Jan. 8, 2011, at Holy Cross Parish at St. Patrick's Church in Olyphant. Mrs. Coccetti was walking from the parking lot to the church around 3:45 p.m. when she fell, "due to an accumulation of hills and ridges of ice and/or snow," according to the suit. She suffered "serious permanent personal injuries" as a result of the fall, including a crushing fracture of a portion of her left arm and loss of motion, the suit alleges. Her injuries have prevented Mrs. Coccetti from completing daily activities, work and have caused medical bills. She is seeking in excess of $50,000.

Though he did not fall, Mr. Coccetti is also seeking in excess of $50,000 after Mrs. Coccetti's injuries deprived him of "love, society, companionship, aid, assistance, comfort, contribution, services and/or consortium" from his wife.

What a chancer! They should have to prove this conclusively and if it is subsequently discovered that Mr Coccetti didn't suffer from $500000 dollars worth of "love, society, companionship, aid, assistance, comfort, contribution, services and/or consortium" from his wife, they should be incarcerated in the State Penitentiary for perjury. The worrying thing is that the ancient concepts of "accident" and "taking care when walking on ice" are now disappearing from the English consciousness as well and is being replaced by the concept of blaming everybody else except yourself if you are stupid enough to go out in winter without wearing the right type of footwear.

Comments

LAWYERING UP — 4 Comments

  1. MP, litigation is a favorite pass-time here in the States. The Law School output has to do something after all, and they can’t all be legislators.

    Besides, Mr. Coccetti may have the necessary receipts from the “contractor” who supplied him with the “love, society, companionship, aid, assistance, comfort, contribution, services and/or consortium” during his wife’s incapacitation.

  2. The RCC responsible for denying a couple “love, society, companionship, aid, assistance, comfort, contribution, services and/or consortium”?

    In other news, water is wet.

  3. Earl and Jo, they went out in the snow.
    And then Jo, she did go for a row
    She fell arse-over-tit
    (She weren’t using her wit)
    Now they’re out for a claim. Way to go!

  4. My first thought was I wonder how much the couple had pledged in the past. Probably the $5 a week type. Not a bad return on the investment.