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

Connecticut Superior Court

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

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6102

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 23, 1992

DocketNo. 099914

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6102 (McCormack v. Sedlak, No. 099914 (Jun. 23, 1992)) 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

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

Pincite

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccormack-v-sedlak-no-099914-jun-23-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack