Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Defendant driver moved to strike plaintiff injured party's revised complaint on the ground of failure to plead sufficient facts in support of her claims for statutory recklessness, common-law recklessness, and a claim for punitive damages.

The injured party filed a personal injury action against the driver as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The injured party alleged that the driver operated his vehicle recklessly in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-222, and that he followed the vehicle in which she was a passenger too closely in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-240. The driver moved to strike on the grounds that the injured party failed to allege statutory recklessness with the degree of specificity required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-295. The court held that the general requirements of § 14-295 were met by stating that the predicate or trigger statute was deliberately and recklessly violated and such violation was a substantial factor in causing the injuries. However, the injured party did not allege facts that demonstrated an extreme departure from ordinary care. Therefore, she did not allege common law reckless conduct with sufficient specificity to survive the motion to strike. The motion was denied as to statutory recklessness; it was granted as to common law recklessness.

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained.

Source: Orr v. Clark, 2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3643, 2004 WL 3105961 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 8, 2004)