Doran v. Blasko, No. Cv 95328351s (Apr. 24, 1996)

Connecticut Superior Court

Doran v. Blasko, No. Cv 95328351s (Apr. 24, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 2895-HHH, 16 Conn. L. Rptr. 516

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 24, 1996

DocketNo. CV 95328351S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 2895-HHH (Doran v. Blasko, No. Cv 95328351s (Apr. 24, 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

Doran v. Blasko, No. Cv 95328351s (Apr. 24, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 2895-HHH, 16 Conn. L. Rptr. 516 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM FILED APRIL 24, 1996 The court accepts the general proposition that if "one count of the complaint sounds in negligence and another count attempts to sound in recklessness by relying on the same fact pattern as the negligence count and simply referring to such conduct as recklessness, the cause of action for recklessness has not been sufficiently alleged." Anderson v. Ansaldi 8 Conn. Conn. L. Rptr. 242 (January 22, 1993) (Berger. J.).

However, in the present case we are not dealing with common law violations but rather statutory violations. Connecticut General Statutes § 14-295 provides that the trier of fact may award enhanced damages if "the injured party has specifically pleaded that another party has deliberately or with reckless disregard operated a motor vehicle in violation" of certain statutes. The plaintiff has so alleged in his second count of the revised complaint.

The motion to strike is therefore denied. CT Page 2895-III

HAUSER, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 FILED APRIL 24, 1996 The court accepts the general proposition that if "one count of the complaint sounds in negligence and another count attempts to sound in recklessness by relying on the same fact pattern as the negligence count and simply referring to such conduct as recklessness, the cause of action for recklessness has not been sufficiently alleged." Anderson v. Ansaldi 8 Conn. Conn. L. Rptr. 242 (January 22, 1993) (Berger. J.).

However, in the present case we are not dealing with common law violations but rather statutory violations. Connecticut General Statutes § 14-295 provides that the trier of fact may award enhanced damages if "the injured party has specifically pleaded that another party has deliberately or with reckless disregard operated a motor vehicle in violation" of certain statutes. The plaintiff has so alleged in his second count of the revised complaint.

The motion to strike is therefore denied. CT Page 2895-III

HAUSER, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 2895-HHH, 16 Conn. L. Rptr. 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doran-v-blasko-no-cv-95328351s-apr-24-1996-connsuperct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack