DocketNumber: No. 51 91 82
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 4111
Judges: MIHALAKOS, J.
Filed Date: 5/5/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The plaintiffs have filed a ten (10) count complaint alleging that plaintiff's decedent and plaintiff were passengers in a truck operated by one of the defendants and that due to operating under the influence of drugs and/or liquor the defendant negligently drove the vehicle over the center line, causing the collision and the claimed injuries.
In the second and seventh counts, the plaintiffs allege that defendant Sharon Knust was the permittee of defendant Full Moon Cafe and that Full Moon, Inc. was the cafe's backer.
Plaintiffs claim that the defendant operator was served alcohol at the cafe, he became inebriated and that the accident was a direct result of his inebriated condition. Plaintiffs seek damages pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Section
Plaintiffs state that Section
General Statutes Section
(T)he aggrieved person or persons shall give written notice to . . . seller (of liquor) within sixty days of the occurrence of such injury . . . of him or their intention to bring an action under this section. In computing such sixty-day period, the time between the death or incapacity of any aggrieved person and the appointment of an . . . administrator . . . of his estate shall be excluded, except that the time so excluded shall not exceed one hundred twenty days.
It does not appear that our Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of whether notice prior to appointment of an administrator is effective under Section
However, in Zucker v. Vogt,
This holding was followed in Price v. Ray B. McHugh Post 4740 VFW,
Adopting the holdings in the Zucker (supra) and Price (supra) cases, the motion to strike count two is denied.
Similarly, the defendant's motion to strike a portion of count three and count eight must also be denied. The demand for relief should properly be separated from the portion of the complaint which alleges facts that constitute the cause of action. Practice Book Section 131. However, the proper way to correct such a defect is by a request to revise. See Practice Book Section 147(4). See also Terixeira v. Scranton Motors, Inc., 2 CTLR 615 (September 13, 1990, Spada, J.).
Since the defendant's motion attacks single paragraphs of counts three and eight, the motion must fail and is hereby denied.
MIHALAKOS, J.