Summary
following Maloney andAmodio, that there can be no recovery in the medical malpractice context
Summary of this case from Boyle v. KrollOpinion
No. 0100954
July 31, 1991.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DEFENDANT — AMAZING STORES, INC. MOTION TO STRIKE DATED MAY 17, 1991
The Fifth Count of the Amended Complaint dated May 10, 1991 sets forth a cause of action in bystander emotional distress, bottomed upon Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal.2d 728, 441 P.2d 912 (1968). The Connecticut Supreme Court, in the context of medical malpractice, has refused to recognize a claim by a family member for bystander emotional distress. Maloney v. Conroy, 208 Conn. 392 (1988).
The Maloney court abandoned its "dalliance" with Dillon v. Legg and relied in part upon Strazza v. McKittrick, 146 Conn. 714, 719 (1959), which held that a bystander may not "recover for injuries occasioned by fear or threatened harm or injury to the person or property of another." Id.
We remain unconvinced that count five in this Amended Complaint presents a cause of action cognizable in Connecticut and we decline to recognize one today. Kinsella v. Hartford Hospital, 11 CLT 31, p. 15 (October 1, 1985 Murray, J.).
The Motion to Strike the Fifth Count is granted.
WILLIAM PATRICK MURRAY A Judge of the Superior Court