Miller v. J. Jean, Inc., No. Cv 98-0143732 (Jul. 13, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Miller v. J. Jean, Inc., No. Cv 98-0143732 (Jul. 13, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8463

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 13, 1998

DocketNo. CV 98-0143732

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8463 (Miller v. J. Jean, Inc., No. Cv 98-0143732 (Jul. 13, 1998)) 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

Miller v. J. Jean, Inc., No. Cv 98-0143732 (Jul. 13, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8463 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM RE: MOTION TO DISMISS This is a Dram Shop case in which the Plaintiff claims to have been assaulted by an intoxicated patron. The Defendant has filed this Motion to Dismiss claiming that the notice requirement under C.G.S. 30-102 was defective in that it failed to name the person to whom the intoxicating liquor was sold. CT Page 8464

There is little authority on this issue other than the decision of Judge Corrigan in Kirby v. Rusty Nail Cafe of BristolInc., 40 Conn. Sup. 331 (1985), who denied a Motion to Dismiss in a similar situation to the instant one. The court held that even when the literal notice requirements have not been met it should not grant the Motion to Dismiss unless the defendant was misled or hampered by the defect. Although the defendant argues that it was hampered by this omission, this Court can not find that "as a matter of law that the defendant has been hampered or misled so as to cause patent defect". 40 Conn. Sup. at 332.

Therefore, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied.

PELLEGRINO, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 RE: MOTION TO DISMISS This is a Dram Shop case in which the Plaintiff claims to have been assaulted by an intoxicated patron. The Defendant has filed this Motion to Dismiss claiming that the notice requirement under C.G.S. 30-102 was defective in that it failed to name the person to whom the intoxicating liquor was sold. CT Page 8464

There is little authority on this issue other than the decision of Judge Corrigan in Kirby v. Rusty Nail Cafe of BristolInc., 40 Conn. Sup. 331 (1985), who denied a Motion to Dismiss in a similar situation to the instant one. The court held that even when the literal notice requirements have not been met it should not grant the Motion to Dismiss unless the defendant was misled or hampered by the defect. Although the defendant argues that it was hampered by this omission, this Court can not find that "as a matter of law that the defendant has been hampered or misled so as to cause patent defect". 40 Conn. Sup. at 332.

Therefore, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied.

PELLEGRINO, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-j-jean-inc-no-cv-98-0143732-jul-13-1998-connsuperct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack