Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
LaRosa v. Lupoli
Citations: 44 Conn. App. 225; 688 A.2d 356; 1997 Conn. App. LEXIS 41Docket: 15829
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; February 11, 1997; Connecticut; State Appellate Court
Carol LaRosa and Thomas LaRosa appeal the trial court's dismissal of their negligence complaint against minor defendant John Lupoli. The trial court ruled it lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was solely against Lupoli, and service was directed only to him rather than his parent or next friend. The incident occurred on May 6, 1995, when Carol LaRosa was struck in the face by a pitch thrown by Lupoli at a Little League game. The LaRosas alleged negligence and loss of consortium. Lupoli moved to dismiss, arguing that the action was defective due to improper service on a minor. However, he did not contest the adequacy of notice or claim any prejudice from the service. The trial court granted the motion, resulting in a judgment favoring Lupoli. On appeal, the LaRosas maintain the trial court had jurisdiction, referencing the precedent set in *Tax Collector v. Miley*, where it was established that service on a minor does not necessitate service on a parent or guardian under Connecticut law. The appellate court acknowledged that the defendant did not dispute the Miley ruling but argued it should be overruled based on public policy protecting minors. The appellate court found that Miley aligns with Connecticut's statutory law regarding service of process and noted that the defendants had not claimed inadequate notice or any resulting prejudice from the service. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, directing it to deny the motion to dismiss and proceed with the case. The opinion was concurred by Justices Foti, Lavery, Landau, Heiman, and Spear. Additionally, the court highlighted the practical difficulties that would arise from requiring a plaintiff to identify an appropriate adult for service in cases involving minors.