From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Varlese v. Beers

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury
Apr 4, 1991
1991 Ct. Sup. 3258 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1991)

Summary

granting motion to strike prayer for relief for double or treble damages because the plaintiff failed to allege specific facts to support a claim of reckless disregard

Summary of this case from Warner v. Kedah Corporation

Opinion

No. 099755

April 4, 1991.


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO STRIKE


The defendant moves to strike the second prayer for relief, which claims as to Count two, double or treble damages pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 14-295.

The plaintiff sues for damages for personal injuries arising from a rear end auto collision on April 17, 1990.

The complaint, Count One, 5, states that the collision was "caused by the negligent operation of the defendant in one or more of the following ways:

(a) IN THAT he was traveling too fast for the road conditions in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 14-218a;

(b) IN THAT he was operating his vehicle at an excessive rate of speed in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 14-219; . . ."and other statutory and common law ways not relevant to this motion.

In the Second Count, the plaintiff relies on the same fact pattern as Count One and claims in paragraph 5(a) and 5(b) the same statutory violations, but labels them as "caused by the defendant's reckless disregard. . ."

The Supreme Court said in Dumond v. Denehy, 145 Conn. 88, at 91:

"We reiterate, and in so doing add emphasis to what we said in Brock v. Waldron, 127 Conn. 79, 80, 14A.2d 713: `[T]he complaint does not state with desirable accuracy a cause of action based on wanton misconduct. There is a wide difference between negligence and a reckless disregard of the rights or safety of others, and a complaint should employ language explicit enough to clearly inform the court and opposing counsel that reckless misconduct is relied on.' The complaint in the instant case fell for short of alleging a cause of action for reckless or wanton misconduct. Simply using the word `reckless' or `recklessness' is not enough. A specific allegation setting out the conduct that is claimed to be reckless or wanton must be made."

The Motion to Strike is granted.

THOMAS J. SULLIVAN, J.


Summaries of

Varlese v. Beers

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury
Apr 4, 1991
1991 Ct. Sup. 3258 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1991)

granting motion to strike prayer for relief for double or treble damages because the plaintiff failed to allege specific facts to support a claim of reckless disregard

Summary of this case from Warner v. Kedah Corporation

In Varlese v. Beers, 3 Conn. L. Rptr. 614 (April 4, 1991, Sullivan, J.), the court faced with an almost identical set of allegations.

Summary of this case from Gaudet v. Ziobran
Case details for

Varlese v. Beers

Case Details

Full title:PAUL VARLESE v. RUFUS H. BEERS

Court:Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury

Date published: Apr 4, 1991

Citations

1991 Ct. Sup. 3258 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1991)

Citing Cases

Warner v. Kedah Corporation

Accordingly, the defendants' motions to strike counts five and six of the plaintiffs' amended complaint must…

Spencer v. King

A number of Superior Court decisions have therefore stricken a claim for double or treble damages under…