McCormack v. Sedlak, No. 099914 (Jun. 23, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

McCormack v. Sedlak, No. 099914 (Jun. 23, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6102

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided June 23, 1992·No. No. 099914·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Here the plaintiff is alleging he was injured as a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant while she was under the influence of alcohol. The defendant has set up a special defense that the plaintiff was negligent in riding in the vehicle knowing the defendant was intoxicated. Now the plaintiff has moved to strike that defense.

The Supreme Court has stated that an assumption of risk if negligence may be considered by the trier as comparative negligence. Wendland v. RidgefieLd Construction, 190 Conn. 791,797-798. However, the Court has also held that assumption of risk is not a defense to the violation of a statute designed to protect the public. L'Heureux v. Hurley, 117 Conn. 347, 356-358. Section 14-227 of the General Statutes is violated when one operates a motor vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The protection of the public against injury by drunken drivers is the manifest purpose of the statute.

Accordingly, the motion to strike the special defense is granted.¹

/s/ McDonald, J. McDONALD

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 Here the plaintiff is alleging he was injured as a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant while she was under the influence of alcohol. The defendant has set up a special defense that the plaintiff was negligent in riding in the vehicle knowing the defendant was intoxicated. Now the plaintiff has moved to strike that defense.

The Supreme Court has stated that an assumption of risk if negligence may be considered by the trier as comparative negligence. Wendland v. RidgefieLd Construction, 190 Conn. 791,797-798. However, the Court has also held that assumption of risk is not a defense to the violation of a statute designed to protect the public. L'Heureux v. Hurley, 117 Conn. 347, 356-358. Section 14-227 of the General Statutes is violated when one operates a motor vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The protection of the public against injury by drunken drivers is the manifest purpose of the statute.

Accordingly, the motion to strike the special defense is granted.¹

/s/ McDonald, J. McDONALD

McCormack v. Sedlak, No. 099914 (Jun. 23, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6102 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6102 (McCormack v. Sedlak, No. 099914 (Jun. 23, 1992)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related