Case Background
In late summer 2019, what began as a simple errand to a local tattoo shop grew into a dispute that followed Patrick Massey for years. Massey walked into Wyld Chyld Tattoo, a business operating under the name All or Nothing, located in south-eastern Connecticut. He went there with the expectation of routine service. Instead, he later claimed he left with injuries that disrupted his daily life, caused him pain, and forced him into a courtroom.
By October 2021, Massey filed suit against the business and those connected to it. He alleged that Wyld Chyld Tattoo and its staff failed to maintain safe conditions and operated in a way that directly caused his injuries. His lawsuit claimed negligence and sought damages for his medical bills, lost time, pain, and emotional suffering.
The Defendants, represented by their own counsel, denied responsibility. They argued that Massey bore fault for what happened and that the business acted reasonably. Over time, the pleadings gave way to discovery, depositions, and eventually a jury trial. On April 25, 2024, a jury in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New London heard the case and issued a verdict that would settle the question of liability.
Cause that led to the dispute
Massey’s complaint focused on negligence. He told the court that Wyld Chyld Tattoo failed in its duty of care toward its customers. He argued that the business operated without proper regard for safety, and that employees ignored risks that an ordinarily careful shop would have prevented.
His lawsuit pointed to conditions and conduct inside the shop that, he argued, directly caused him harm. According to his position, a safe environment was not maintained, reasonable standards were overlooked, and he suffered preventable injuries as a result.
The defense denied those claims and filed special defenses. They argued that Massey himself acted carelessly and failed to exercise proper caution. By their telling, any injuries he sustained stemmed at least in part from his own negligence. This set the stage for a trial not only about whether the shop bore responsibility, but also about how much blame, if any, Massey should carry.
Injury
Massey described his injuries in detail. He testified that the incident left him with both physical and emotional harm. His injuries required medical treatment that included diagnostic imaging, doctor visits, and therapy. He said he lived with lingering pain that interfered with his daily routine.
He explained to the jury that the pain restricted his ability to perform ordinary tasks and affected his quality of life. According to his testimony, what began as an ordinary visit to a local tattoo shop became a turning point that left lasting consequences.
The defense pressed back, questioning both the extent of his injuries and their cause. They suggested that some of Massey’s complaints were exaggerated or unrelated to the incident. They also argued that he did not prove the business was directly responsible for the pain he described.
Damages
Massey asked the jury for both economic and non-economic damages. His economic damages included medical bills for hospital visits, testing, and follow-up care. He also claimed lost income from missing work. His non-economic damages covered pain, suffering, emotional distress, and the loss of enjoyment of everyday activities.
The defense disputed nearly every aspect of his damages. Their attorneys argued that the treatment costs were excessive or unrelated. They suggested that Massey’s complaints did not match the objective medical evidence. They urged jurors to consider whether some of his pain came from pre-existing conditions or natural wear and tear rather than the tattoo shop incident.
At trial, the jury received evidence of the amounts Massey spent on medical care and the testimony of doctors who treated him. But when it came time for the verdict, the jury chose not to itemize or break down the categories of damages. Instead, they focused on responsibility and overall compensation.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Patrick J. Massey
Counsel for Plaintiff: David P. Mester | Dressler Strickland
Defendants: Wyld Chyld Tattoo CT d/b/a All or Nothing, Inc.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Kara M. Crismale
Claims
Plaintiff’s counsel told the jury that this case was about basic responsibility. He argued that Wyld Chyld Tattoo, like any business, owed a duty of care to its customers. According to him, they broke that duty by failing to provide a safe environment. He reminded jurors that businesses exist only because customers trust them, and when that trust is broken, the law requires accountability.
Defense
Defense counsel painted a different picture. He argued that the shop acted reasonably and that Massey created his own risk. He told the jury that personal responsibility mattered, and that the Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care for his own safety. By this account, Massey either misused the premises or failed to pay attention, leading to injuries that were not the shop’s fault.
Jury Verdict
On April 25, 2024, after hearing days of testimony and reviewing the evidence, the jury delivered its decision. They found in favor of the Plaintiff, Patrick Massey, but not without some reservation.
The jurors determined that Wyld Chyld Tattoo bore the vast majority of responsibility for the incident. They assigned most of the fault to the Defendants. However, they also found that Massey carried a small share of blame as well.
Because Connecticut follows comparative negligence rules, a Plaintiff’s damages are reduced by the percentage of fault assigned to them.
Court Documents
