Patricia Lachiver v. James Lynch et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE

Although the parties have articulated their respective positions at a short calendar on September 30th, this Court turns to one of its earlier decisions in 2010:  Campbell v. Batchelder, 2010 WL 515–8170.   The parallels between the Campbell case and the above case are striking.   Each case involves the allegation of statutory recklessness in the second count in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 14–218 and Connecticut General Statutes § 14–222.   In the third count, the plaintiff alleges reckless conduct of the said defendant Lynch in two paragraphs involving the operation of the said motor vehicle at a high rate of speed in a construction zone and with unsafe studded snow tires.

The plaintiff claims that the two counts involving reckless conduct are legally sufficient and are not subject to the defendant's motion to strike.   The court finds that the plaintiff has sufficiently distinguished the two reckless counts from the first negligence count.   This Court looks to its earlier decision in Campbell and applies the same rationale as to statutory recklessness and common-law recklessness, thereby adopting the majority position that the complaint when read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff is legally sufficient.

Therefore, the Court denies the defendant's motion to strike counts two and three of the subject complaint and leave the parties to their proof.

BY THE COURT

V. ROCHE, J.

Roche, Vincent E., J.