Michele Newman et al. v. Frito-Lay, Inc. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO REVISE AND PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION THERETO

On July 20, 2010, the court head oral argument on the above.   The argument and issue before the court concerns a negligence allegation in the second revised complaint dated April 22, 2010.   This allegation is:

O. in that the defendant operator violated Connecticut Statutes § 14-45a and Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles Regulation 14-45a-8(4)(B);

Section 14-45a reads as follows:  “The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles shall adopt regulations, concerning the licensing of a person with health problems.   Such regulations shall include basic standards for licensing decisions with respect to the most common and recurrent health problems ․”

Motor Vehicles Regulation § 14-45a-8(4)(B) sets out what the “Medical Advisory Board when making recommendations, and the (Motor Vehicle Department) when taking licensing action may consider.”

The negligence allegations of any complaint should contain the claims as against the defendant for what he did or failed to do in his operation of the motor vehicle in questions.   Also, they should identify such statute or motor vehicle laws the plaintiff claims have been violated by the defendant in his operation of the motor vehicle.

What the motor vehicle department considered or failed to consider in issuing its regulations or failing to issue same, or what the medical advisory board considered or failed to consider in making its recommendations, should not and cannot be blamed on the defendant who unfortunately lost his hearing at some point in his life or perhaps was born deaf.

The regulation in question under, “Screening by the Department,” does list “(a) vision;  (b) hearing;” however, if a license was issued to the defendant he had every right to be on the highway as would any other driver.   However, he had no right to enter a one-way street the wrong way and then back out of said one-way street if the way was not clear to do so.   There is nothing to prevent the plaintiff from arguing that he caused the accident because of his inability to hear a horn blowing behind him.   But the defendant cannot be blamed for something the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles or the Medical Advisory Board, did or failed to do.

Accordingly, the court instructs the plaintiff to revise her complaint by omitting Paragraph (19), Subparagraph (O) from the negligence allegations contained in said complaint.

So Ordered.

David W. Skolnick

Judge Trial Referee

Skolnick, David W., J.T.R.