DocketNumber: No. CV95 32 07 43 S
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 4545
Judges: MAIOCCO, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 5/1/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
In the first count of the complaint, Thomas McAuliffe, as executor, asserts a medical malpractice claim against the defendant. In the second count, Thomas McAuliffe, in his individual capacity (as the decedent's husband), asserts a loss of spousal consortium claim. In the third count, Ethan McAuliffe, the decedent's son, asserts a loss of parental consortium claim. In the fourth count, Lindsay McAuliffe, the decedent's daughter, through her parent and next friend, Thomas McAuliffe, asserts a claim for loss of parental consortium.
On March 23, 1995, the defendant filed a motion to strike (#102) the third and fourth counts of the plaintiffs' complaint and a supporting memorandum of law. On April 17, 1995, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum is opposition.
"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. IN ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the complaint. The court must construe the facts in the complaint favorably to the plaintiff." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) NovametrixMedical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc.,
The defendant's first ground for striking the third and fourth counts of the complaint is that under Connecticut's wrongful death statute, General Statutes §
The defendant's second ground for striking the third and fourth counts is that in Connecticut, there is no cognizable cause of action for loss of parental consortium. Presently, there is a split of authority as to whether such a cause of action exists. Nevertheless, this court has previously recognized such a cause of action in Vizzo v. Keleman, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 309650 (
MAIOCCO, JUDGE