Spiotti v. Clark

Syllabus

The plaintiff in each of two cases, a police officer, appealed from the trial court's judgments granting in part a motion to strike by the defendants in the first case and granting a motion to strike by the defendant in the second case. The plaintiff alleged in his operative complaints that B, a dancer employed at R Co., an adult entertainment establishment, was served intox- icating liquors while on the premises of R Co. despite the fact that she was already noticeably intoxicated and that B's intoxicated behavior caused personal injuries to the plaintiff, who had been called to R Co. due to B's disruptive behavior. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court improp- erly granted the motions to strike as to the counts alleging reckless service of alcohol on the ground that he failed to plead the necessary elements of that cause of action. Held: The trial court improperly granted the motion to strike in the first action as to the count of the operative complaint against the defendant V Co. alleging liability under the Dram Shop Act (§ 30-102) on the ground that the plaintiff failed to provide timely statutory notice to V Co., as, in light of Governor Ned Lamont's Executive Order No. 7G that temporarily suspended statutory deadlines related to service of process, the plaintiff provided timely notice to V Co. The trial court improperly struck the reckless service of alcohol counts in both actions on the ground that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support the claims against the defendants because the allegations in the operative complaints did not rise beyond ordinary negligence, as, taking as true the factual allegations in the operative complaints and construing them in the manner most favorable to sustaining their legal sufficiency, this court concluded that the alleged conscious and intentional disregard of the sub- stantial risk of serving B alcohol while she was intoxicated in favor of increased profits demonstrated wanton and reckless co