Ashner v. Colt, No. Cv91-0445779 (Jan. 13, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Ashner v. Colt, No. Cv91-0445779 (Jan. 13, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1001, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 269

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 13, 1992

DocketNo. CV91-0445779

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1001 (Ashner v. Colt, No. Cv91-0445779 (Jan. 13, 1992)) 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

Ashner v. Colt, No. Cv91-0445779 (Jan. 13, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1001, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 269 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE COUNT 2 Defendants seek to strike Count 2 of the plaintiffs' complaint on the grounds that (1) a valid cause of action for injuries to an unborn child does not exist, and (2) if such a cause of action exists, it is premature in that no harm yet CT Page 1002 exists as a result of defendants actions.

The court holds that a valid cause of action for injuries to an unborn child does in fact exist. Gorke v. LeClerc,23 Conn. Sup. 256, 258; Tursi v. New England Windsor Co.,19 Conn. Sup. 242; Prates v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 19 Conn. Sup. 487. Further, the plaintiffs have alleged that the unborn child received injuries which, on the date the complaint was issued, were as yet undetected and undiagnosed. The plaintiffs should be allowed to present at trial proof of whatever injuries were sustained, whether they are currently known today or not.

The motion to strike is denied.

FRANCES ALLEN SENIOR JUDGE

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE COUNT 2 Defendants seek to strike Count 2 of the plaintiffs' complaint on the grounds that (1) a valid cause of action for injuries to an unborn child does not exist, and (2) if such a cause of action exists, it is premature in that no harm yet CT Page 1002 exists as a result of defendants actions.

The court holds that a valid cause of action for injuries to an unborn child does in fact exist. Gorke v. LeClerc,23 Conn. Sup. 256, 258; Tursi v. New England Windsor Co.,19 Conn. Sup. 242; Prates v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 19 Conn. Sup. 487. Further, the plaintiffs have alleged that the unborn child received injuries which, on the date the complaint was issued, were as yet undetected and undiagnosed. The plaintiffs should be allowed to present at trial proof of whatever injuries were sustained, whether they are currently known today or not.

The motion to strike is denied.

FRANCES ALLEN SENIOR JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1001, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashner-v-colt-no-cv91-0445779-jan-13-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack