DocketNumber: No. 0121072
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2663, 14 Conn. L. Rptr. 167
Judges: FLYNN, J.
Filed Date: 3/17/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The motion to strike is denied as to these third and fourth counts. A minor child has a right to expect companionship and the other bundle of supportive human relationships which characterize the normal parent and child. If deprived of that continued relationship for some period of time as a proximate result of the legal wrong of another, there is no good reason why the child should not be able to maintain a cause of action for that loss.
A negligent defendant will be held liable if the injury CT Page 2664 occurs as a result of an unbroken sequence of events and if the result if not remote in time or space. Mitnick v. WhalenBrothers, Inc.,
Where the consequences in causal relationship are too remote, recovery will be denied. Mahoney v. Beatman,
When the plaintiff has been guilty of negligence, but that negligence is so inconsequential or remote, the law will not regard it. Robinson v. Southern New England Telephone Co.,
The test that is often applied in determining whether there exists a duty to use care is the foreseeability of harm.Attardo v. Ambriscoe,
It is foreseeable that if the victim of negligence is a parent of a child such child may have suffered a loss as a result of the parent's injury if the injury diminishes that parent's ability to care for the child.
Where serious injury or death occurs to a parent, it is foreseeable that the child's life will be less for lack of the nurturing support and stability that a good parent brings to the lives of offspring.
Our own life's experience informs our view. If there are those of us who have not been the parent, we have all been the child. That experience teaches us that there is no closer human bond, nor can there be found a more important care giver or teacher than the parent to the minor child.
The court is also persuaded by the reasoning of Judge Gray in Paradiso v. Nasioka, (1994) Superior Court, no. 320396; Judge Murray in Henderson v. Nicciche, 6 Conn. L. Rtpr. 317 (1992); Judge Hurley in Beckwith v. Akers,
The motion to strike the child's claim for loss suffered because of the injury to the parent set out in counts three and four is denied.
A motion to strike has also been filed as to counts five and six. The defendant claims that the plaintiff has not CT Page 2665 properly pleaded a claim for punitive double or treble damages under §
This portion of the statute requiring a causal nexus between the violation of the particular triggering statute and the injury is not legislative dross. The General Assembly, after the decision in Bishop v. Kelly,
Section
Because this ground is dispositive as to these counts, the defendant's remaining claims are not addressed.
FLYNN, J. CT Page 2666