An attorney for Kate and Michael Regan responded to a brought against the couple calling the compensation amount “inflated, disproportionate, and wholly without evidentiary support,” according to papers filed at Stamford Superior Court Tuesday.
Attorney Jonathan P. Whitcomb challenged the suit brought against the New Canaan couple by the son of Krishna S. Jayaraman, who was killed by a hit-and-run driver in August 2010. Kate Regan faces criminal charges of evading responsibility and negligent homicide in connection with Jayaraman's death.
Whitcomb said the plaintiff’s request is “staggeringly excessive,” in view of the decedent’s advanced age, debilitated physical condition (heart and diabetic conditions), lack of future economic capacity, and lack of evidence of pain and suffering.
In response to a subpoena Whitcomb had delivered to Jayaraman requesting delivery of numerous documents, the plaintiff applied for a protective order.
In his motion, Whitcomb says the subpoena is “responsive to Plaintiff’s own affidavit, his proposed complaint, and highly publicized claims." The Plaintiff’s spurious motion for a protective order “contravenes the recognized purpose of the discovery rules, and seeks to impede the propose course of litigation.”
Considering the decedent’s “contributory negligence” and particulars of the road conditions, Whitcomb writes, these relevant factors “obviate the need for a pre-judgment remedy beyond the Regan’s insurance coverage.”
A footnote says the Regan’s insurance provides for $300,000 in proceeds.
As to the victim's contributory negligence, Whitcomb says the decedent was clearly in Regan’s right of way (and) but for his presence in the highway, “the accident would not have occurred."
Whitcomb says Jayaraman claims to need a protective order because his family has been forced into the media spotlight, and he has been subject to months and months of media attention.
There is nothing in the reportage to suggest the Plaintiff was “forced” into any press disclosures, Whitcomb says. On the contrary, from the vitriolic and frequently misleading statements attributed to Plaintiff, “it appears the Plaintiff took advantage of media attention to further his legal agenda.”
Jayaraman also applied for the protective order, Whitcomb writes, to protect himself from “abusive cross examination” by the defense.
In the civil complaint prepared by the son’s lawyer, Frederic S. Ury, Kate Regan is accused of driving her Infiniti QX56 last Aug. 18 at a “fast rate of speed” on Oenoke Ridge Rd. (Rte. 124) while attempting to change a DVD in her vehicle. Her action resulted in her veering to the right and striking the elder Jayaraman while he was removing mail from his curbside mailbox, the complaint says.
The complaint goes on to say Jayaraman, 82, was “violently thrown to the ground, and then (Regan) drove over him with the rear tires of her vehicle.”
“Despite knowing that she hit something,” the complaint says, Kate Regan did not stop to render assistance to my father, but instead continued traveling to Pound Ridge, NY, “leaving my father severely injured in his driveway.”
Jayaraman was taken by ambulance to Norwalk Hospital where he was pronounced dead.
The complaint then alleges Regan, 32, filed a false report with her car insurance company, claiming her passenger-side mirror was damaged while her car was parked at a location in New Canaan while she was running errands. It says she gave the same story to a New Canaan Police sergeant investigating the accident.
An earlier New Canaan Patch article further describing the complaint Jayaraman has brought against Regan can be found here.
On Nov. 3, 2010, New Canaan Police arrested Regan by warrant, charging her with negligent homicide with a motor vehicle and evading responsibility involving a death with a motor vehicle.
Regan is scheduled to next appear in state Superior Court in Norwalk May 13, where she is being prosecuted on the criminal charges.
A pre-hearing status conference on the civil case is scheduled to occur in state Superior Court in Stamford on May 2.