Kaluski v. Izaguire, No. Cv 020463055 S (Jul. 15, 2002)

Connecticut Superior Court

Kaluski v. Izaguire, No. Cv 020463055 S (Jul. 15, 2002)

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 8891

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 15, 2002

DocketNo. CV 020463055 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 8891 (Kaluski v. Izaguire, No. Cv 020463055 S (Jul. 15, 2002)) 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

Kaluski v. Izaguire, No. Cv 020463055 S (Jul. 15, 2002), 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 8891 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Before this court is the defendant's motion to strike the second count of the plaintiffs complaint. That count alleges a cause of action for recklessness pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 14-295. The plaintiff objects to the motion.

Both parties acknowledge that there is no appellate authority addressing the issue raised by the motion, and there is a split of authority in the Superior Court on this issue. This court has previously ruled, consistent with the rulings of the majority of Connecticut Superior Courts, that citing the statute is sufficient to plead statutory recklessness. See, e.g. Motta v. Goodrich, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain at New Britain, docket no. CV 98-0487678S (Nov. 25, 1998, Robinson, A., J. 1998 Ct. Sup. 13470). Therefore, consistent with its prior rulings, this court denies the defendant's motion. CT Page 8892

Angela Robinson-Thomas, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 Before this court is the defendant's motion to strike the second count of the plaintiffs complaint. That count alleges a cause of action for recklessness pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 14-295. The plaintiff objects to the motion.

Both parties acknowledge that there is no appellate authority addressing the issue raised by the motion, and there is a split of authority in the Superior Court on this issue. This court has previously ruled, consistent with the rulings of the majority of Connecticut Superior Courts, that citing the statute is sufficient to plead statutory recklessness. See, e.g. Motta v. Goodrich, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain at New Britain, docket no. CV 98-0487678S (Nov. 25, 1998, Robinson, A., J. 1998 Ct. Sup. 13470). Therefore, consistent with its prior rulings, this court denies the defendant's motion. CT Page 8892

Angela Robinson-Thomas, Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 8891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaluski-v-izaguire-no-cv-020463055-s-jul-15-2002-connsuperct-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack