AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

CARMELA NOCERA v. HOWLEY BREAD GROUP.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO STRIKE

PATTY JENKINS PITTMAN, Judge.

The plaintiff brings this action in two counts against the defendant: negligence and products liability. The plaintiff alleges that he purchased a box of freshly brewed coffee from the defendant. When the plaintiff got the box home and began to pour it, the spigot on the box came loose causing coffee to gush out and scald the plaintiff. The defendant moves to strike Count One, sounding in negligence, on the grounds that the Connecticut Product Liability Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m et seq., alleged in Count Two, provides the exclusive remedy for damages when one is injured by a defective product. The plaintiff opposes the motion.

STANDARDS FOR A MOTION TO STRIKE

In deciding a motion to strike, the court must read the allegations in the contested pleading in the light most favorable to the pleader. Faulkner v. United Technologies Corp., 240 Conn. 576, 580, 693 A.2d 293 (1997). The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest the legal sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint and to challenge whether they state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Peter-Michael, Inc. v. Sea Shell Associates, 244 Conn. 269, 270, 709 A.2d 558 (1998).

DISCUSSION

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572n(a) provides

[a] product liability claim . . . may be asserted and shall be in lieu of all other claims against product sellers, including actions of negligence, strict liability and warranty, for harm caused by a product.

Case law makes clear that a cause of action under the statute is the exclusive remedy for a claim falling within the scope of the statute. CT Page 12620 Winslow v. Lewis-Shepard, Inc., 212 Conn. 462, 562 A.2d 517 (1989).

The plaintiff has alleged that he purchased a product from the defendant, that he brought the product home, and that when he attempted to use the product he was injured. Such a set of allegations falls within the scope of the statute. The fact that the two counts of the complaint contain alternative theories of how the product came to be defective is immaterial.

CONCLUSION

The Motion to Strike Count One is granted.

CT Page 12621

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

NOCERA v. HOWLEY BREAD GROUP, No. HHB CV095013050 (Jul. 23, 2009)
(Jul 23, 2009)