DocketNumber: No. 32 88 40
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 2118
Judges: MORAGHAN, J.
Filed Date: 2/25/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
"11. The foregoing accident was caused by the Defendant Reinke, for whose negligence or recklessness the Defendant Meinerth is also liable, in one or more of the following ways:
"a) In that she deliberately or with reckless disregard operated the motor vehicle in violation of Section
"b) In that she deliberately or with reckless disregard operated the motor vehicle in violation of Section
"12. The aforesaid violations of Sections
The defendants have filed a motion to strike the third count and paragraph two of the prayer for relief which requests double or triple damages pursuant to §
"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." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Faulkner v. United TechnologiesCorporation,
Several of our superior courts have required that plaintiffs allege sufficient facts "to inform the defendant of what acts were reckless . . . regardless of whether the claim is based on a statute or on common law." (Citation omitted.) Meiliken v.Romano, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 131303 (April 28, 1994, Lewis, J.). See alsoBivens v. Brewster, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 308588 (March 22, 1994, Rodriguez, J.). The plaintiff's third count fails to apprise the defendants of what specific acts were reckless, and thus does not disclose an adequate factual predicate to support that allegation. Accordingly, the defendants' motion to strike the third count is granted.
Moraghan, J.