DocketNumber: No. CV95 0146709 S
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13472
Judges: KARAZIN, J.
Filed Date: 12/6/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Defendants move to strike the entire complaint.
"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 most favorably to the plaintiff." Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v.BOC Group, Inc.,
Defendants move to strike the complaint on five grounds: nonjoinder of all five Golf Commission members; governmental immunity; an individual cannot be held responsible for the conduct of a body of which he is but one member; the individual defendants were engaged in supervisory and discretionary functions, thus they have governmental immunity; and the individual defendants cannot be held liable in the absence of personal, tortious conduct.
Practice Book § 152 provides in part that "[a] motion to strike on the ground of the nonjoinder of a necessary party must . . . state his interest in the cause of action." A party is necessary if "its presence is absolutely required in order to assure a fair and equitable trial." Biro v. Hill,
Defendants claim the complaint must be stricken because the individual defendants are protected by governmental immunity because they were engaged in supervisory and discretionary CT Page 13474 functions. The public duty doctrine dictates the liability of municipal employees. Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority,
Defendants claim that the individual defendants were engaged in discretionary/supervisory capacities and are therefore immune. Plaintiffs respond that in a motion to strike, when it is not clear from the face of the complaint whether the defendants were engaged in ministerial or discretionary acts, the motion to strike must be denied. The complaint states that Curley was charged with the duty to maintain and/or administer the golf course, and Dale was charged with the duty to maintain and/or manage the golf course. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to warn motorists and golfers about the danger, failed to prevent stray golf balls and failed to build a course so that golf balls would not enter public roads and cause damage. "Only when a complaint contains sufficient allegations that it can be determined, as a matter of law, that the municipality was engaged in the performance of a governmental function, a claim for governmental immunity may be raised on a motion to strike." Condito v. City of Stamford,
The defendants, in their motion, raise the issue of whether the city is immune. The defendants do not address the contention in their memorandum of law. Practice Book § 155. "Where an issue is raised by a party, and the party fails `to offer any reasoned explanation' or legal analysis, the `issue is not sufficiently briefed to warrant the court's consideration.'" Milford Bank v.Kerschner Research Develop., Superior Court, judicial district of Bridgeport, Docket No. 277089 (Jan. 6, 1990, Ballen, J.); Gaynorv. Union Trust Co.,
Lastly, defendants argue that an individual cannot be held liable in the absence of personal, tortious conduct. Again, the complaint states that the individual defendants had a duty, and the duty was breached.
The defendants' motion to strike is therefore denied.
KARAZIN, J.