Page 31 - CLT122120

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS DECEMBER 21, 2020 ¦ 31

the plaintiff organization for 2 years. Plaintiff ’s strike the claims of statutory and common law
organization changed its corporate structure, recklessness asserted against the operator of
and encouraged the plaintiff to sign on to the the vehicle, arguing that plaintiff failed to al-
new structure, however defendant surgeon left lege facts sufficient to support the two claims.
work with the plaintiff, and within three days The court disagreed, finding that plaintiff al-
was practicing with the corporate defendant leged facts sufficient to distinguish the two
Yale University. Plaintiff brought a suit seek- recklessness claims from her claim of negli-
ing to enforce the non-compete provision and gence. She alleged, among other things, that
moved for a temporary injunction preventing the operator “deliberately and/or knowingly
defendant from working with Yale, and seek- and with reckless disregard, operated a motor
ing damages. Defendant conceded that he began vehicle at a rate of speed much too fast for the
working with Yale within the time period and traffic and road conditions.” She further al-
geographical location limited in the contract, leged that the operator “intentionally and with
however argued that General Statutes §20-14p disregard for the safety of others knew he was
precluded enforcement of the non-compete pro- driving at excessive speed … and knowing these
visions. Defendants argued that §20-14p did not actions were reckless and placed those around
apply because the employment contract was him at substantial risk of serious injury, he
not entered into or renewed on or after July 1, consciously chose to continue to drive/act in an
as required. The court noted that the contract irresponsible and/or reckless manner without
was actually a one-year contract, subject to au- attempting to alter his actions to protect those
tomatic renewals, rather than one 10-year con- around him from harm.” Because these factual
tract. As a result, the court found §20-14p ap- allegations were sufficient to support claims for
plied to the contract, and that the non-compete both statutory and common law recklessness,
clause was unenforceable against the defendant. the court denied defendants’ motion to strike.
The court found the new corporate structure in
place, and defendant’s refusal to sign the post-
reorganization contract in face of termination, PERSONAL INJURY

was not constructive discharge, however still Court Grants Summary Judgment in
found the automatic renewals dispositive on Industrial Accident Indemnity Claim
enforceability. The court denied any injunctive
relief related to defendant’s ongoing orthopedic CASE: Lopes v. Blast-All, Inc.
work with the corporate defendant. COURT: Hartford J.D., Complex Litigation Docket

MOTOR VEHICLE TORTS DOC. NO.: CV17-6124061
COURT OPINION BY: Schuman
DATE: November 25, 2020 • PAGES: 9
Allegations Sufficient to Support
Plaintiff Lopes was injured in an industrial vac-
uuming accident during construction of a bridge
Claims for Both Statutory and Common for the state, and brought claims against defen-
Law Recklessness dants Middlesex (general contractor), Blast-All
(subcontractor), and Vector (the vacuum manu-
CASE: Davis v. Clarke facturer). As to Middlesex, plaintiff alleged neg-
COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport ligence, premises liability, and vicarious liability,
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6091152 and Middlesex moved for summary judgment.
COURT OPINION BY: Doyle The court found plaintiff pointed to no lan-
DATE: December 01, 2020 • PAGES: 7
The court denied defendant’s motion to strike, guage in the contract between Middlesex and the
finding that plaintiff alleged facts sufficient to state making plaintiff or the subcontractor third
support her claims for both statutory and com- party beneficiaries, and therefore found no duty
mon law recklessness. Following a motor vehi- to plaintiff. The court granted Middlesex’s mo-
cle collision, plaintiff sued both the owner and tion for summary judgment. In addition, Vector
the operator of the vehicle, alleging that the brought a cross-claim against Blast-All seeking
operator’s negligence and recklessness caused indemnity, and Blast-All moved for summary
plaintiff to suffer injuries, damages, and other judgment. The court granted summary judg-
losses. Plaintiff asserted causes of action for ment in favor of Blast-All, finding no indepen-
negligence, statutory recklessness, and com- dent legal relationship between the parties to
mon law recklessness. Defendants moved to justify indemnity.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune