A Motion to Strike is used by the defendant to eliminate the threat of punitive damages in this fatality claim.Posted: April 30, 2018 Filed under: Connecticut | Tags: #Contest, carelessness, Cause of action, common law, decedent, fatal injuries, favorably, Gross negligence, judicial district, legal sufficiency, Motion to Strike, omissions, prayer, Punitive damages, quotation marks omitted, Reckless, Reckless Conduct, reckless disregard, recklessly, recklessness, sounding, swing, viewing, wantonly Leave a comment
The deceased had entered onto the land of the defendant and was using a rope swing to jump into a lake. She died, somehow, using the swing and her estate sued the landowner.
Kopesky v. Connecticut American Water Company, 1999 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2166
State: Connecticut, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford – Norwalk, at Stamford
Plaintiff: Renee Kopesky
Defendant: Connecticut American Water Company
Plaintiff Claims: wrongful death (?)
Defendant Defenses: Motion to Strike
Holding: for the defendant
This motion to strike was used to take punitive damages off the table in the litigation. This takes a lot of pressure off the defendant and deals a significant blow to the plaintiff. The damages in the case are dropped significantly probably increasing the chance of a settlement.
The plaintiff is the administratrix of the estate for the deceased. The deceased entered on to land owned by the defendant and died when she fell off a rope swing over a lake.
The defendant filed a motion to strike. A motion to strike is a preliminary motion used to eliminate claims that have no basis in the facts or the law does not allow.
The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) For purposes of a motion to strike, the moving party admits all facts well pleaded.”
The motion to strike may also be used to contest the legal sufficiency of any prayer for relief.
The defendant argued that the second count of the complaint, a claim for punitive damages was legally insufficient because it relies on the same facts the plaintiff basis their first claim on, negligence. Those facts did not support a claim for punitive damages.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
The court first looked at the elements the plaintiff had to prove to a claim for punitive damages. To receive punitive damages the plaintiff would have to prove the defendant’s actions were reckless.
Recklessness is a state of consciousness with reference to the consequences of one’s acts. . . . It is more than negligence, more than gross negligence . . . The state of mind amounting to recklessness may be inferred from conduct. But, in order to infer it, there must be something more than a failure to exercise a reasonable degree of watchfulness to avoid a danger to others or to take reasonable precautions to avoid injury to them . . .”
A claim for negligence must be separate and distinct and based on additional facts from a recklessness claim.
There is a wide difference between negligence and reckless disregard of the rights or safety of others . . . A specific allegation setting out the conduct that is claimed to be reckless or wanton must be made . . . In other words, it is clearly necessary to plead a [common law] cause of action grounded in recklessness separate and distinct from a negligence action.”
For the plaintiff to prove recklessness the actions of the defendant must be intentional and the conduct must be highly unreasonable.
In order to rise to the level of recklessness, [the] action producing the injury must be intentional and characterized by highly unreasonable conduct which amounts to an extreme departure from ordinary care . . .”
Here the court found the plaintiff had not pled the facts necessary to prove a claim of recklessness. Consequently, there could be not be a claim for punitive damages and the second count must be dismissed.
So Now What?
It seems odd to file a motion to eliminate one claim. However, like bunting in baseball, it has a greater effect than sacrificing a runner.
First, it makes your insurance company rest easier because most policies do not cover punitive damages. Eliminating this claim takes tremendous burden and conflict off the defendant and the insurance company.
Second, the damages have been dropped significantly. In this case, the damages are reduced to the lost value of the life of the deceased.
Finally, it deals a blow to the plaintiff. Litigation is a lot of back and forth, minor wins or losses over the course of the litigation. This is a slightly bigger loss for the plaintiff and will put both parties in a better position to negotiate a settlement.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Copyright 2018 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
If you are interested in having me write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
By Recreation Law Recfirstname.lastname@example.org James H. Moss
#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,