Bonnetti v. the Continental Corporation, No. Cv 92 070 36 07 (Oct. 3, 1994)

Connecticut Superior Court

Bonnetti v. the Continental Corporation, No. Cv 92 070 36 07 (Oct. 3, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 10007

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 3, 1994

DocketNo. CV 92 070 36 07

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 10007 (Bonnetti v. the Continental Corporation, No. Cv 92 070 36 07 (Oct. 3, 1994)) 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

Bonnetti v. the Continental Corporation, No. Cv 92 070 36 07 (Oct. 3, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 10007 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISIONON PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TOREQUEST TO REVISE On May, 1994, this court granted the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to support his claim of willful, wanton and reckless conduct. On May 24, 1994, the defendant filed a request to revise the plaintiff's amended complaint by deleting it in its entirety, claiming that the plaintiff's amendments do nothing more than repeat the allegations of the original complaint, which the court held were conclusory and unsupported by sufficient facts. On July 14, 1994, the plaintiff filed a timely objection to the defendant's request to revise.

In order to allege a cause of action for willful, wanton and reckless conduct, the plaintiff must allege facts that show "such conduct that indicates a reckless disregard of . . . the safety of others or . . . intentional misconduct." Kowal v. Hofher, 181 Conn. 355,362 (1980). In his amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges that (1) he was a regular customer known to the CT Page 10008 defendant's employees; (2) he was in a visibly intoxicated state in that he was loud, boisterous and unruly; (3) he was served by the same waitress during a five hour period of heavy drinking; and (4) he was served at least one last drink "for the road" just at closing time. These allegations that the defendant served a patron alcohol despite the fact that he was obviously drunk appear to be legally sufficient. Castillo v. Brito,5 Conn. L. Rptr. 201 (October 28, 1991, Hennessey, J.), Kirchmeier v.Forshay, 4 CSCR 337 (March 17, 1989, Pickett, J.). differ from the allegations found to be cf: Stebbins v.Staschke, 3 CSCR 421 (March 21, 1988, Reynolds, J.), andMuckle v. Francis, Superior Court, Judicial district of New London at New London, docket number 518276 (August 13, 1992, Leuba, J.).

Plaintiff's objection to the defendant's request to revise is sustained.

Wagner, 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 DECISIONON PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TOREQUEST TO REVISE On May, 1994, this court granted the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to support his claim of willful, wanton and reckless conduct. On May 24, 1994, the defendant filed a request to revise the plaintiff's amended complaint by deleting it in its entirety, claiming that the plaintiff's amendments do nothing more than repeat the allegations of the original complaint, which the court held were conclusory and unsupported by sufficient facts. On July 14, 1994, the plaintiff filed a timely objection to the defendant's request to revise.

In order to allege a cause of action for willful, wanton and reckless conduct, the plaintiff must allege facts that show "such conduct that indicates a reckless disregard of . . . the safety of others or . . . intentional misconduct." Kowal v. Hofher, 181 Conn. 355,362 (1980). In his amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges that (1) he was a regular customer known to the CT Page 10008 defendant's employees; (2) he was in a visibly intoxicated state in that he was loud, boisterous and unruly; (3) he was served by the same waitress during a five hour period of heavy drinking; and (4) he was served at least one last drink "for the road" just at closing time. These allegations that the defendant served a patron alcohol despite the fact that he was obviously drunk appear to be legally sufficient. Castillo v. Brito,5 Conn. L. Rptr. 201 (October 28, 1991, Hennessey, J.), Kirchmeier v.Forshay, 4 CSCR 337 (March 17, 1989, Pickett, J.). differ from the allegations found to be cf: Stebbins v.Staschke, 3 CSCR 421 (March 21, 1988, Reynolds, J.), andMuckle v. Francis, Superior Court, Judicial district of New London at New London, docket number 518276 (August 13, 1992, Leuba, J.).

Plaintiff's objection to the defendant's request to revise is sustained.

Wagner, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 10007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonnetti-v-the-continental-corporation-no-cv-92-070-36-07-oct-3-1994-connsuperct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack