301 A.2d 270 (Conn.Cir.Ct. 1972), CV 10-7204-16762, Town of Groton v. Medbery

Docket Nº:CV 10-7204-16762.
Citation:301 A.2d 270, 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 671
Opinion Judge:BIELUCH, Judge.
Party Name:TOWN OF GROTON v. Russell S. MEDBERY et al.
Attorney:Suisman, Shapiro, Wool & Brennan, New London, for plaintiff. O'Brian, Shafner & Garvey, Groton, for defendants.
Judge Panel:BIELUCH,
Case Date:November 08, 1972
Court:Circuit Court of Connecticut

Page 270

301 A.2d 270 (Conn.Cir.Ct. 1972)

6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 671



Russell S. MEDBERY et al.

No. CV 10-7204-16762.

Circuit Court of Connecticut, Tenth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 1972

Page 271

Suisman, Shapiro, Wool & Brennan, New London, for plaintiff.

O'Brian, Shafner & Garvey, Groton, for defendants.


This action is brought under General Statutes § 31-293 for the recovery by the plaintiff of workmen's compensation payments to its employee, a police officer, injured in a collision with and while in pursuit of a motor vehicle stolen and operated by the defendant John G. Medbery, an unemancipated minor. The plaintiff also seeks recovery [6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 672] from the minor's father, the defendant Russell S. Medbery, by authority of the parental liability law, § 52-572.

The plaintiff alleges that the minor wilfully and/or maliciously injured and damaged the police officer, known to be pursuing him, by operating a stolen motor vehicle in the nighttime without headlights and in such a manner as to avoid apprehension, by disregarding a stop sign and striking a car, and by colliding with a truck on a bridge and turning his vehicle sideways so as to block both lanes of travel thereon and then colliding with the cruiser operated by the officer. The defendants have demurred on the ground that the substituted complaint does not allege any act of wilfulness or maliciousness by the minor son which caused the officer's damages and injuries, as required by the parental liability law. Section 52-572 creates parental liability for the torts of minors in two situations. We are not concerned here, however, with the portion of the statute making a parent liable with the minor for damage to a motor vehicle taken by the child without the permission of the owner. The plaintiff seeks to recover by the other provision of the law, which imposes joint and several liability upon the parent with the minor who wilfully or maliciously causes damage to any property or injury to any person, if such minor would have been liable therefor had he been an adult.

If a cause of action could be proven under the allegations of the complaint, it is good and a demurrer does not lie. The sufficiency of the allegations as against the demurrer is to be tested by the facts provable under them, and the court, in considering the allegations, will give them the same favorable construction...

To continue reading