DocketNumber: No. CV99-0174453S CT Page 2782
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 2781
Judges: D'ANDREA, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 2/20/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
On March 3, 2000, the defendant brought a motion to strike the second count of the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that it is legally insufficient and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In the second count of his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that his injuries were caused by the carelessness and negligence of the defendant in that (1) she failed to exercise reasonable care in controlling her minor child in order to prevent him from harming others; and (2) she failed to control her minor child's abuse of illegal substances although she knew or should have known that her minor child was involved with these substances.
"Whenever any party wishes to contest (1) the legal sufficiency of the allegations on any complaint . . . that party may do so by filing a motion to strike. . . ." Practice Book §
First, the defendant argues that count two of the plaintiff's complaint must be stricken because the plaintiff does not allege an exception to the common law rule that a parent is not liable for the torts of its minor child. The defendant argues that the plaintiff only alleges a claim of negligent supervision which is not one of the exceptions. The plaintiff responds that count two of his complaint is legally sufficient as he has alleged that the defendant knew or should have known of her child's dangerous tendencies and that this is a recognized exception.
"It is well-established in this state that a parent at common law is not liable for [its] child's tort unless the parent either makes a dangerous instrumentality available to the child which the child is incapable of handling or the parent fails to control a child's known dangerous propensities." (Brackets in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Burke v. Fitzgerald, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 322083 (September 22, 1997,Melville, J.). "A parent is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so to control his minor child as to prevent him from . . . so conducting himself as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to . . . [others], if the parent (a) knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control his child, and (b) know or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Murphy v. Lachapell, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury at Waterbury Docket No. 142410 (May 23, 1999,Pelligrino, J.).
In this case, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in controlling her son and preventing him from harming others and that she failed to control his abuse of illegal substances although she knew or should have known that her son was involved with them. Consequently, the court finds that the language of count two sufficiently alleges that the defendant knew or should have known of her child's dangerous tendencies and therefore, the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an exception to the general rule that a parent is not liable for the torts of its minor child.
Next, the defendant argues that count two must be stricken because under the holding in Crotta v. Home Depot, Inc.,
The court finds the defendant's reliance on Crotta unpersuasive. InCrotta, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that "the doctrine of parental immunity operates to preclude the parent of a minor plaintiff from being joined as a third party defendant for purposes of apportionment ofliability, contribution or indemnification based on the parent's allegedly negligent supervision of the minor plaintiff" (Emphasis added.)Crotta v. Home Depot, Inc., surpa,
Finally, the defendant argues that count two must be stricken because the plaintiff may only bring a cause of action against the parents of a minor under Connecticut General Statutes §
The court finds that because the plaintiff has alleged an exception to the common law rule that a parent is not liable for the torts of its minor child, General Statutes §
In conclusion, the plaintiff has alleged a legally sufficient claim in count two of his complaint. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to strike count two of the plaintiff's complaint is hereby denied.
So Ordered.
D'ANDREA, J.