Court Multiplies Damages for Reckless Car Accident
by
Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 12, 2017
Accident & Injury Accident & Injury Car Accident Accident & Injury Personal Injury
Summary: Blog post on a car accident case where the court multiplied the damages awarded to the plaintiff because of the defendant driver's reckless behavior.
Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
Motion to strike was denied as common-law recklessness claim stated claim with same facts raised in negligence claim by alleging that collision was result of driver's reckless and wanton conduct and/or reckless disregard, and that driver operated car at excessive speed, was inattentive to vehicle's operation, and violated Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-222.
Plaintiff passenger filed suit against defendants, a driver and the owner of the family car (defendants). Defendants moved to strike the common-law recklessness claim against the driver, the statutory recklessness claim against the driver under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-295, the statutory recklessness claim against the owner, and the prayer for relief seeking money damages, multiple damages pursuant to § 14-295, and punitive damages.
The trial court held that the passenger stated a claim for common-law recklessness by alleging that the collision was the direct and proximate result of the reckless and wanton conduct and/or reckless disregard of the driver, and that the driver operated the motor vehicle at an excessive speed, was inattentive to the operation of his vehicle, and violated Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-222. The complaint was not deficient because the same factual allegations were made as to the common-law recklessness and negligence counts. The statutory recklessness claim against the driver stated a claim. Section 14-295 provided a basis for an independent claim, which was not redundant due to the common-law recklessness claim. The use of the same facts as the negligence claim was proper. The § 14-295 claim against the owner was legally insufficient. A § 14-295 claim could not be made against an allegedly vicariously liable owner. The passenger could seek punitive damages under the common law and double or treble damages under § 14-295 against the driver. The passenger could not seek multiple or punitive damages against the owner.
The motion to strike was granted as to the owner and the prayer for multiple and punitive damages against the owner. In all other respects, the motion to strike was denied.
At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained.
Source: Martin v. Close, 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3589 (Conn. Super Ct. December 11, 2009)
