Anita Knox v. Elana Schaner (2013)

RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (# 104)

I. DISCUSSION

The defendant, Elana Schaner, moves to strike the second count of the plaintiff's complaint and corresponding prayer for relief seeking punitive damages and costs on the ground that the plaintiff's recklessness claim is legally insufficient inasmuch as it fails to sufficiently allege a cause of action for common-law recklessness.   Specifically, the defendant argues that the allegations made in the second count are essentially identical to the first count, except that the words “negligent and careless” were replaced with the words “reckless willful and/or wanton misconduct.”   In addition, the defendant argues that the plaintiff makes no further allegations to demonstrate how the conduct alleged in the first count for negligence becomes recklessness in the second count.

“Recklessness is a state of consciousness with reference to the consequences of one's acts ․ It is more than negligence, more than gross neglience ․ The state of mind amounting to recklessness may be inferred from conduct.   But, in order to infer it, there must be something more than a failure to exercise a reasonable degree of watchfulness to avoid danger to others or to take reasonable precautions to avoid injury to them ․ Wanton misconduct is reckless misconduct ․ It is such conduct as indicates a reckless disregard of the just rights or safety of others or of the consequences of the action.”   (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Franc v. Bethel Holding Co., 73 Conn.App. 114, 137–38, 807 A.2d 519, cert. granted in part, 262 Conn. 923, 812 A.2d 864 (2002).

In the present case, the plaintiff, Anita Knox, alleges that her injuries were proximately caused by the willful and reckless disregard for the consequences of the defendant's actions, inasmuch as the defendant wantonly and recklessly (1) failed to keep a proper and reasonable lookout for other patrons in the store;  (2) failed to maintain her shopping cart at a proper and reasonable distance from the plaintiff;  (3) failed to operate her cart in a reasonable manner;  and (4) failed to warn the plaintiff about the impending harm.   As a result of this conduct, the plaintiff alleges that she sustained injury.

The plaintiff, however, does not allege facts that demonstrate the existence of the defendant's state of consciousness with reference to the consequences of the defendant's alleged actions, nor does the plaintiff allege facts that would support a finding that the defendant's conduct indicates a reckless disregard of the just rights or safety of others or of the consequences of her actions.   Accordingly, the plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to support a claim for common-law recklessness.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to strike is granted as to the second count and as to the corresponding prayer for relief seeking punitive damages and costs.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

PETER EMMETT WIESE, JUDGE

Wiese, Peter E., J.