The plaintiff’s decedent was struck by a motor vehicle being operated by the defendant while the decedent was working in or near the shoulder of the road. The complaint alleged negligence, statutory recklessness and common law recklessness. The defendant moved to strike the § 14-295 claim. The court adopts the majority view which holds that “a claim for statutory recklessness is legally sufficient so long as it alleges that the defendant deliberately or with reckless disregard violated one of the statutes enumerated in § 14-295 and further asserts that the violation was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries.” Furthermore, “as long as the general requirements of the statute are met, such pleading is enough to survive a motion to strike….” The court finds that the second count of the complaint does not specifically allege that the defendant “deliberately or with reckless disregard operated a motor vehicle” in violation of the statute nor does it allege “that such violation was a substantial factor in causing such injuries.” Because the second count did not conform with § 14-295, the claim is legally insufficient is stricken. of Molyneux v. Desanto, No. KNL-CV22-6059297S, 2023 WL 1794524 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 3, 2023).