O'Connor v. Jensen, No. Cv93 052 11 92 S (Jul. 20, 1993)
Opinion of the Court
The defendant claims, as pertains to both the second and the third count the plaintiff must allege the conduct that is claimed to be reckless or wanton. The plaintiff misreads Dumond v. Deneky,
"Recklessness is a state of consciousness with reference to one's acts. . . . The state of mind amounting to recklessness may be inferred from conduct." Begley v. Kohl Madden Printing Ink Co.,
By incorporating the claims of negligence from the first count into the second count the plaintiff has specified the conduct upon which she relies. By setting forth the violations of statutes in the third count the plaintiff has set forth the conduct upon which she relies. The state of mind of recklessness is the fact to be proven. Matters tending to show that state of mind are evidence, and as such are neither necessary nor appropriate to be set forth in the pleading. (Pactice [Practice] Book 108).
The second contention of the defendant is that "the plaintiff has included in the third count an allegation of statutes not expressly included in Section
For the reasons set forth herein, the motion to strike is denied.
L. P. Sullivan, J.
Next page is 6877 CT Page 6877
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.