DocketNumber: No. CV94 540649
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 3005
Judges: SCHIMELMAN, J.
Filed Date: 3/29/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
In the third count, plaintiff alleges that defendants removed signs from a stop sign where the decedent and Sandra Sorensen placed them. Plaintiff further alleges that: on August 25, 1992, the deceased placed himself at a place off the road to observe the sign he placed on the stop sign post to discover the identity of the person or persons who were removing the signs; thereafter, defendants approached the location of the sign, stopped their vehicle, and Carla Guerra removed the sign from the stop sign post; Carla Guerra reentered the car and began to drive away. It is further alleged that while defendants were in the process of removing the sign, the decedent came out from his location and entered the intersection where the stop sign was located. The decedent was struck by a vehicle operated by co-defendant Darien Lewie, which ultimately caused the decedent's death.
Plaintiff claims that the injuries and death of the decedent were caused by the negligence of defendants in that defendants, acting individually and/or in concert (1) engaged in removing the signs, (2) removed the signs from the stop sign post, (3) removed the signs from the stop sign post when they knew or should have known they had no right to do so, (4) failed to call the lawful authorities to request removal of the signs, and (5) removed the signs from the stop sign post when they knew or should have known that the activity could cause a confrontation with the decedent, thereby creating a dangerous condition of confrontation on a city street.
In the fourth count, plaintiff claims that as a result of the negligence of defendants, Sandra Sorensen has suffered the loss of her husband's consortium.
"The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Mingachos v.CBS, Inc.,
Defendants, in their memorandum in support of their Motion to Strike, assert that they owed no duty to the decedent, and therefore, cannot be liable in negligence. Defendants content that a reasonable person under the same circumstances certainly would not anticipate that removing a sign from a stop sign would cause a pedestrian to enter the traveled portion of the highway into the path of an oncoming vehicle. Additionally, defendants argue that there exists no causation between the defendants' acts and the death of the decedent, and therefore, plaintiff has no cause of action in negligence.
Plaintiff, in her memorandum in opposition, claims that defendants did owe the decedent a duty of care because a reasonable prudent person would anticipate that a confrontation with the decedent over removal of his signs would occur in the road. Plaintiff also claims that the acts of defendants caused the death of the decedent.
"The ultimate test of the existence of a duty to use care is found in the foreseeability that harm may result if it is not exercised." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Antrumv. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc.,
Plaintiff has failed to state facts, which, if proven, would show that the decedent's death was a foreseeable result of the defendants' actions. Instead, plaintiff has merely alleged legal conclusions of foreseeability which are CT Page 3008 unsupported by facts.
Accordingly, defendants' motion to strike the third and fourth counts of plaintiff's complaint is granted.
Schimelman, J.