Plaintiff's Injury Claim Undermined by Lack of Specificity

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.

In a negligence, recklessness, and negligent entrustment action by plaintiff injured person against defendants, the executrix of the estate of a driver and his employer (who owned the car he was driving), the executrix and the employer moved to strike those counts alleging common law and statutory recklessness.

The driver (who had died of unrelated causes not long after the accident) rear-ended the injured person's car. He was driving a car belonging to his employer, a car dealership. Arguing that the driver was driving recklessly, the injured person sued the employer as well as the driver's estate, and sought to recover multiple damages, as permitted in cases of statutory reckless driving under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-295. The court held that pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-599, the action against the driver survived his death, and could appropriately be brought against his estate. The court further held that the injured person could, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-183's agency provision, seek to recover from the employer for the driver's common law negligence. To recover multiple damages under the statutory recklessness statute, however, the injured person had to plead the reckless behavior at issue with great specificity. Since the complaint only stated that the driver was not paying any attention and picked up a cigarette from the floor of the car, the statutory recklessness counts were insufficiently pled.

The court denied the motion to strike the common law recklessness claim, but granted the motion to strike the statutory recklessness counts.

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: Welcome v. Ouelette-Mcgregor, 2002 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3718 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002)