Rosario v. Bergenty
Allegations that a moped driver who smelled of alcohol collided with a bicyclist and then ran over the bicyclist's leg and foot can be sufficient to allege recklessness. The plaintiff alleged the following facts, which have not been proven. On Aug. 14, 2010, the plaintiff was working as a security guard for Securitas Security Services USA and patrolling the Miami Beach Association in Old Lyme, Conn. on a bicycle. The plaintiff stopped his bicycle, and asked the defendant whether he required assistance, when the defendant circled the plaintiff on his moped. The defendant allegedly collided with the plaintiff, causing the plaintiff to fall, and ran over the plaintiff's leg. The defendant fell on the ground and the plaintiff helped the defendant up and observed that he smelled of alcohol. The defendant allegedly returned to his moped and ran over the plaintiff's foot. The plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging that he was negligent, reckless, sped and operated under the influence of alcohol. The defendant moved to strike the recklessness count. The majority view provides that a plaintiff is required to plead facts: 1.) that constitute negligence, 2.) that the defendant deliberately or with reckless disregard violated an enumerated statute; and 3.) that the defendant's violation was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury. The plaintiff met these requirements, because he alleged that the defendant was negligent, that the defendant deliberately or with reckless disregard violated C.G.S. §§14-222 and 14-227a, and that the defendant's violation was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff's complaint adequately alleged recklessness, and the court denied the defendant's motion to strike.