DocketNumber: No. CV01-0812106
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 10383, 32 Conn. L. Rptr. 698
Judges: HENNESSEY, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/15/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
On November 2, 1999, the plaintiff, William Ricks was involved in an CT Page 10384 automobile accident between himself and an unknown party who was driving a truck. This accident occurred while the plaintiff was in the course of his employment for the defendant, State of Connecticut, who is a co-plaintiff in this matter. Upon attempting to acquire a police report of the accident, the plaintiff was told it had been lost. Therefore the plaintiff cannot identify the other party involved in the accident. The plaintiff subsequently brought suit against the defendants, State of Connecticut, the City of Hartford, and Patrick Sullivan, the officer at the scene of the accident. On January 14, 2002, the defendants Patrick Sullivan and City of Hartford filed a motion to strike the third count of the complaint on the grounds that there is no cause of action for spoilation of evidence, no private remedy for public duties and because the plaintiff failed to allege that the defendant ever possessed a report. The defendant, Ricks filed an objection to the motion on February 27, 2002 and the defendant State of Connecticut filed an objection on April 8, 2002.
The defendants first argue that Count III of the complaint must be stricken because no cause of action can exist for "spoilation of evidence". However, the complaint does not allege the spoilation of evidence but rather the defendant, Patrick Sullivan's breach of duty. Therefore the argument that no cause of action may be brought for spoilation of evidence is irrelevant. Defendants' motion to strike on this ground is denied.
The defendants also argue that the omissions complained of by the plaintiff involve public duties and therefore do not give rise to a private remedy for money damages. This argument is not correct. Police departments have a duty to maintain records and such is a ministerial duty. General Statute §
The defendants' last argument is that the motion to strike should be granted because the complaint does not specifically allege that the defendant ever actually had or received a report. Although this is true, the plaintiff does allege that he was told that the report had been lost. This certainly assumes that the plaintiff believes a report existed. Further, the plaintiff does allege the defendants' failure to preserve the record, pursuant to §
Count III of the plaintiff's complaint does allege legally sufficient claims. Accordingly, the defendants' motion to strike is denied.
___________________ Hennessey, J.