Reckless misconduct has been defined as an extreme departure from ordinary care, when danger is apparent. The plaintiff, Heidi Dyjak, alleged that the defendant, Michael Prouty, negligently and recklessly permitted his rooster to roam, and that the rooster attacked and injured her. The defendant moved to strike the plaintiff's recklessness count. Reckless misconduct involves a conscious disregard of a high risk, such as engaging in a particularly dangerous course of conduct after receipt of a warning. The court found that the plaintiff's complaint failed to adequately allege recklessness, because there were no claims that the defendant knew, or should have known, about substantial risks that could result from his failure to secure the rooster. The complaint's recklessness count, wrote the court, "is bereft of factual allegations which, if true, indicate that the defendant consciously disregarded substantial peril and risk to others." The court granted the defendant's motion to strike.