AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
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
Attorney(S)
Judges

JOSEPH CRUZ v. RAYMOND WICE ET AL.

The named defendant's motion to strike, for insufficient notice, the count of the complaint in which the plaintiff sought damages under the dram shop act (§ 30-102) was denied since, although the notice requirements of that act had not been literally met, that defendant was neither hampered nor misled by the defect.

CORRIGAN, J.

The defendant Raymond Wice has moved to strike the first count of the three count revised complaint in that the notice attached to the complaint is insufficient under the provisions of the dram shop act; General Statutes § 30-102; failing to give the time of day of the sale and the name of the person to whom the sale was made.

Although the count alleges wanton and reckless conduct in paragraph four, a recognized common law cause of action in the sale of liquor; Kowal v. Hofher, 181 Conn. 355, 360-61, 436 A.2d 1 (1980); the count claims the damages pursuant to General Statutes § 30-102 as alleged in paragraph nine.

The purpose of the notice required of the dram shop act is to enable a prospective defendant to begin marshalling his evidence while memories are still fresh. Zucker v. Vogt, 329 F.2d 426, 428 (1964). The act, being remedial, should be construed liberally to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. Pierce v. Albanese, 144 Conn. 241, 251, 129 A.2d 606 (1957). The notice herein gives the time of day as "evening" and states that the injury was caused by a patron of the defendant while the plaintiff was also a patron. Even though notice requirements have not been literally met, nevertheless, if under all the circumstances it appears that the party entitled to notice was neither misled nor hampered by the defect, then he may not avail himself of it. Greenberg v. Waterbury, 117 Conn. 67, 70-71, 167 A. 83 (1933). Even though the notice given herein does not patently meet the requirement of naming the purchaser the court cannot find as a matter of law that the defendant has been hampered or misled so as to cause potent defect. Fraser v. Henninger, 173 Conn. 52, 56, 376 A.2d 406 (1977).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CRUZ v. WICE
(Mar 6, 1984)