Cloutier v. the Stop Shop Companies, Inc., No. 68409 (Sep. 7, 1993)

Connecticut Superior Court

Cloutier v. the Stop Shop Companies, Inc., No. 68409 (Sep. 7, 1993)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 8103, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 1000

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 7, 1993

DocketNo. 68409

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 8103 (Cloutier v. the Stop Shop Companies, Inc., No. 68409 (Sep. 7, 1993)) 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

Cloutier v. the Stop Shop Companies, Inc., No. 68409 (Sep. 7, 1993), 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 8103, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 1000 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO STRIKE PARAGRAPH 10 OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Plaintiff brings this action against Stop Shop for injuries she claims she suffered when she slipped and fell at a store. In Paragraph 10 of the complaint, the plaintiff, who was pregnant at the time of the fall, claims she suffered mental anguish and emotional distress from the time of the accident until after the birth of her child because of her concern over the child's potential injuries. The defendant has now moved to strike the tenth paragraph on the ground that Connecticut does not recognize a claim for bystander emotional distress. The plaintiff objects to the motion.

Plaintiff is not alleging a cause of action for bystander emotional distress. To claim that a mother is a bystander in relation to her fetus strains reason, and plaintiff is not making that claim. See Sakelarakis v. Howard,4 CSCR 339, 340 (April 20, 1989, Hodgson, J.) (motion to strike denied because mother worrying about unborn child's welfare is "foreseeable emotional distress to one to whom a duty of care is owed.") CT Page 8104

Defendant is therefore seeking to strike an individual paragraph of a complaint which does not state an entire cause of action. This is not the proper use of a motion to strike and it is therefore denied. See Zanoni v. Hudon, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, Docket Number 399162 (March 11, 1992, Schaller, J.); Bank of Boston Connecticut v. Balbrae Associates, LTD, Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, Docket Number 371650 (January 25, 1991, Hennessey, J.); Depray v. St. Francis Hospital, 2 CSCR 691 (June 9, 1987, Dorsey, J.)

HIGGINS, 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 ON MOTION TO STRIKE PARAGRAPH 10 OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Plaintiff brings this action against Stop Shop for injuries she claims she suffered when she slipped and fell at a store. In Paragraph 10 of the complaint, the plaintiff, who was pregnant at the time of the fall, claims she suffered mental anguish and emotional distress from the time of the accident until after the birth of her child because of her concern over the child's potential injuries. The defendant has now moved to strike the tenth paragraph on the ground that Connecticut does not recognize a claim for bystander emotional distress. The plaintiff objects to the motion.

Plaintiff is not alleging a cause of action for bystander emotional distress. To claim that a mother is a bystander in relation to her fetus strains reason, and plaintiff is not making that claim. See Sakelarakis v. Howard,4 CSCR 339, 340 (April 20, 1989, Hodgson, J.) (motion to strike denied because mother worrying about unborn child's welfare is "foreseeable emotional distress to one to whom a duty of care is owed.") CT Page 8104

Defendant is therefore seeking to strike an individual paragraph of a complaint which does not state an entire cause of action. This is not the proper use of a motion to strike and it is therefore denied. See Zanoni v. Hudon, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, Docket Number 399162 (March 11, 1992, Schaller, J.); Bank of Boston Connecticut v. Balbrae Associates, LTD, Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, Docket Number 371650 (January 25, 1991, Hennessey, J.); Depray v. St. Francis Hospital, 2 CSCR 691 (June 9, 1987, Dorsey, J.)

HIGGINS, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 8103, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 1000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cloutier-v-the-stop-shop-companies-inc-no-68409-sep-7-1993-connsuperct-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack