Page 39 - CLT022420

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS FEBRUARY 24, 2020 ¦ 39

defendant’s objection thereto, finding that The court first addressed count two, common
the proposed amendments related back to law recklessness. The court found that plain-
the original complaint and were thus timely. tiff alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate this
Rohan Williams died at birth. His mother, claim; the defendant failed to keep his car under
Kristian Best, acting in her individual capac- control, he was driving at an unreasonable rate
ity and as administratrix of Rohan’s estate, of speed, and he failed to pay attention to the
sued the birthing center where Rohan was cars that had slowed in front of him. As to
born, asserting claims of wrongful death and count three, statutory recklessness, defendant
emotional distress arising from alleged medi- argued that plaintiff failed to plead any spe-
cal malpractice by the nurses, nurse-midwives, cific allegations. The court acknowledged there
and student nurses who attended the birth. is a split of authority as to this issue but agreed
Pursuant to G.S. §52-190a, Best supported her with the majority view that a plaintiff can make
complaint with a letter from a similar health- general allegations of recklessness stated in the
care provider. She later sought leave to amend statute. Plaintiff alleged that defendant oper-
her complaint to add additional allegations ated his vehicle in violation of several General
of negligence, as well as new causes of ac- Statutes. The court denied defendant’s motion
tion for lack of informed consent. Over de- to strike count three.
fendant’s objection, the court granted Best’s
request to amend the complaint. First, the
additional allegations involved the same ac- Undisputed Testimony Established
tors, events, and injuries at issue in the origi- That Defendant Did Not Own or
nal complaint. At issue and not in the original Control Rug Over Which Plaintiff
complaint and the proposed amendments was Allegedly Fell
defendant’s alleged failure (1) to advise Best
that it would be safer for her to deliver her
baby at a nearby hospital, due to the superior CASE: Baribeault v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
equipment available at the hospital for moni- COURT: New London J.D. at New London
toring the infant’s heart rate. and (2) to obtain DOC. NO.: CV19-6041109
Best’s consent to remain at defendant’s birth- COURT OPINION BY: Murphy
ing center. The amendments thus related back DATE: January 27, 2020 • PAGES: 4
to the original complaint. Defendant failed to
present any evidence to support its claim that The court granted defendant Aramark Servic-
allowing the amendment would result in delay es, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, find-
or otherwise unfairly prejudice defendant. Fi- ing it undisputed that Aramark did not own,
nally, although the amendment asserted new possess, or control either the premises where
causes of action for lack of informed consent, plaintiff alleged she was injured or the rug al-
§52-190a does not apply to informed consent leged to have caused her injury. Plaintiff alleg-
claims, which are evaluated under an objective edly tripped over a defective rug or floor mat
lay standard in a Wal-Mart store, causing her to fall and
sustain injuries. She sued Aramark, among
others, for her injuries. Aramark moved for
summary judgment. In support of its motion,
PERSONAL INJURY it submitted sworn statements and testimony
that (1) Wal-Mart, and not Aramark, was in
Defendant’s Motion to Strike Two of possession and control of the premises where
Plaintiff’s Counts in Personal Injury plaintiff allegedly fell, and also maintained
Lawsuit Denied and inspected those premises; and (2) although
Aramark provides and services rugs for that
Wal-Mart location, the only rugs it provides
CASE: Knutson v. Montalto are “Aramark Steady Step Mats,” and the rug
COURT: Waterbury J.D. at Waterbury plaintiff claimed to have tripped on was not
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6050413-S such a rug. In opposition, plaintiff offered
COURT OPINION BY: Roraback the testimony of a store employee, who at-
DATE: January 22, 2020 • PAGES: 8
Plaintiff sued defendant over injuries she suf- tested that Aramark provides rugs to the store,
fered during a car accident. Defendant filed a and sometimes removes and replaces them,
motion to strike counts two and three of plain- but that she did not know if the rug at issue
tiff ’s complaint. The court denied the motion. was an Aramark rug. Because this testimony

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune