Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield, Bridgeport
Eddie A. Cisneros, Conservator of the Estate of Jose Cisneros
Team Stamford, LLC dba Domino's Pizza
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Dale W. Radcliffe, J.
The Plaintiff brings this action in his representative capacity as Conservator of the Estate of Jose Cisneros.
On January 8, 2012, at approximately 8:17 p.m., Jose Cisneros, a pedestrian, was in the process of crossing West Broad Street, a Public highway in the City of Stamford. He claims that as he was crossing the street, he was struck by a motor vehicle operated by one Firoz Ahmed, causing him to suffer serious personal injuries.
The Plaintiff claims that as a consequence of the accident, Jose Cisneros suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI), a pelvic fracture, a fracture of his left leg, and a loss of consciousness. Jose Cisneros was taken to a hospital, where he underwent surgery.
In his operating complaint, the Third Amended Complaint dated June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff claims that Firoz Ahmed operated his motor vehicle negligently, and that Jose Cisneros was injured as a result.
This action is brought against Team Stamford, LLC, d/b/a Domino's Pizza, the only named Defendant. It is claimed that Firoz Ahmed, at the time of the January 8, 2012 accident, was employed by Team Stamford, LLC, and was in the process of delivering pizza products. Firoz Ahmed was operating his own vehicle, at the time of the incident.
In his complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Firoz Ahmed was operating the vehicle in furtherance of the Defendant's business.
The Third Amended Complaint contains three (3) counts.
Count One alleges negligent supervision of the operator of the motor vehicle Firoz, Ahmed, by Team Stamford, LLC, acting through its agents and employees, while Count Two claims that Team Stamford, LLC negligently operated its business.
Count Three, labeled " Respondeat Superior, " seeks to hold the Defendant liable for the negligent operation of the automobile by Firoz Ahmed.
The Defendant objects to Count Three of the Amended Complaint. He claims that the count represents a new cause of action, and is barred by the statute of limitations.
The Defendant also moves to strike Count One and Count Three of the ...