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.
Motion to strike was denied as animal worker stated claim for recklessness where he alleged that dog that bit him was violent, that it had attacked others including family members in past, that owners knew dog was violent, and that they failed to warn worker of dog's violent temperament and history.
On April 3, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended three-count complaint, alleging that, on April 30, 2011, while acting in the scope of his employment with Tailwaggers of Litchfield, LLC, he was injured when he attempted to put a collar on a dog owned by defendants. Count one alleges that the defendants are strictly liable to the plaintiff pursuant to General Statutes ยง22-357. In the second count, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants were negligent in that they knew or should have known of the dog's violent propensities. The third count, which is the subject of the motion to strike, alleges that the defendants were "reckless and wanton" in that they knew that the dog was violent and that the dog had previously attacked others, including members of their own family, and they failed to warn the plaintiff of the foregoing facts. The plaintiff seeks, inter alia, punitive damages relative to the third count of his complaint.
The dog owners' claim that a recklessness count could not stand if it simply incorporated the factual allegations of a negligence count was rejected; all that was required was that an animal worker utilize language explicit enough to inform the court and opposing counsel that both negligence and recklessness were being asserted. Although the recklessness claim was not much different from the negligence count, the worker stated a claim for recklessness where he alleged that the dog that bit him was violent, that it had attacked others including family members in the past, that the owners knew the dog was violent, and that they failed to warn the worker of the dog's violent temperament and history.
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.
Please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.
Source: Bedell v. Compagna, 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1440 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jun 27, 2013)
