Alamo v. Hartford Steam Boiler, No. 0133740 (Dec. 23, 1996)

Connecticut Superior Court

Alamo v. Hartford Steam Boiler, No. 0133740 (Dec. 23, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7034

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 23, 1996

DocketNo. 0133740

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7034 (Alamo v. Hartford Steam Boiler, No. 0133740 (Dec. 23, 1996)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alamo v. Hartford Steam Boiler, No. 0133740 (Dec. 23, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7034 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE. #111 The defendant's motion to strike is denied for the CT Page 7035 following reasons:

1. As to Count Two: General Statutes § 52-183 provides that where recovery is sought for allegedly negligent or reckless operation of a motor vehicle, the non-owner operator "shall be presumed to be the agent and servant of the owner of the motor vehicle and operating it in the course of his employment. The defendant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption." Thus, the statute raises the presumption of liability for reckless operation, an issue for the trier of fact. See Waslewski v. Robinson, 6 Conn. L. Rptr. 139 (1992). The claim is not legally insufficient and improper.

2. As to Count Three: Punitive damages can be assessed against an employer for the action of his employee if the employer authorized or ratified the employee's conduct. SeeFort v. White, 530 F.2d 1113 (1976). Since the matter of authorization or ratification is a question for the trier of fact, the claim is not legally insufficient and improper.

SANDRA VILARDI LEHENY, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE. #111 The defendant's motion to strike is denied for the CT Page 7035 following reasons:

1. As to Count Two: General Statutes § 52-183 provides that where recovery is sought for allegedly negligent or reckless operation of a motor vehicle, the non-owner operator "shall be presumed to be the agent and servant of the owner of the motor vehicle and operating it in the course of his employment. The defendant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption." Thus, the statute raises the presumption of liability for reckless operation, an issue for the trier of fact. See Waslewski v. Robinson, 6 Conn. L. Rptr. 139 (1992). The claim is not legally insufficient and improper.

2. As to Count Three: Punitive damages can be assessed against an employer for the action of his employee if the employer authorized or ratified the employee's conduct. SeeFort v. White, 530 F.2d 1113 (1976). Since the matter of authorization or ratification is a question for the trier of fact, the claim is not legally insufficient and improper.

SANDRA VILARDI LEHENY, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alamo-v-hartford-steam-boiler-no-0133740-dec-23-1996-connsuperct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack