DocketNumber: No. X03 CV 99 0499931 S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 12103
Judges: AURIGEMMA, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/31/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Facts and Procedural History
This claim arises from an incident that occurred on Thursday, March 27, 1997. At that time, the plaintiff, James Gazza, alleges that he was a self-employed landscape contractor hired by the co-defendant, J. H. Tree Timber Corporation, to assist with its tree-pruning and woodchipper operations at its customer's Bloomfield, Connecticut property. The plaintiff was in the process of feeding branches into a Bandit Industries Model 1400 Woodchipper, owned and maintained by J. H. Tree Timber Corp., when it is alleged the branches became entangled about his right leg and body, and pulled him into the woodchipper. The plaintiff suffered a traumatic amputation of the right leg.
The plaintiff and his wife initiated this action against Bandit CT Page 12104 Industries, Inc. (the alleged manufacturer of the woodchipper); Performance First, Inc. (also an alleged manufacturer of the woodchipper); Ciola Services, Inc. (an alleged seller of the woodchipper); J.H. Tree Timber Corp. (the owner of the woodchipper at the time of this incident); and James C. Horahan (the principal of J.H. Tree Timber Corp.)
On November 12, 1999, the plaintiffs filed a second Amended Complaint, which added Hawkensen Equipment Co., Inc., as a product liability defendant and Tardif as a negligence defendant.
Tardif has presented affidavits which establish that Tardif sold the woodchipper to an unidentified person in the summer of 1994, that the defendant Ciola Services, Inc. owned the woodchipper after it was sold by Tardif in 1994, and sold the woodchipper to J.H Tree Timber Corporation on December 31, 1995.
Discussion of Law and Ruling
Practice Book §
Summary judgment should only be granted if the pleadings, affidavits and other proof submitted demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Scinto v. Stain,
Connecticut General Statutes §
No action to recover damages for injury to the person, or to real or personal property, caused by negligence . . . shall be brought but within two years from the date when the injury is first sustained or discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered, and except that no such action may be more than three years from the date of the act or omission complained of . . .
The plaintiff's injuries were sustained on March 27, 1997. The plaintiff brought his negligence action against Tardif by way of Amended Complaint dated November 12, 1999. Since the plaintiff's negligence action was not brought within two years of the date the injury was sustained, the plaintiff's claim is barred by the two-year limitations period of C.G.S. §
Plaintiff's claims of negligence relate to the sale of the woodchipper. Tardif sold the woodchipper in the summer of 1994. Tardif owned the woodchipper before Ciola. Ciola sold the woodchipper to J.H. Tree Timber Corporation on December 31, 1995.
The statutory clock on the three-year time limit begins running when the negligent conduct of the defendant occurs. McDonald v. Haynes MedicalLaboratory, Inc.,
Plaintiff alleges that his injuries and damages were caused by the negligence and carelessness of Tardif, in that:
a. It sold the woodchipper without all of its original or then recommended parts, instructions and/or warnings, including the quick-stop and reversing safety bar device supplied and required by the woodchipper manufacturer and/or the in-feed chute CT Page 12106 fold-drop-down tray-table safety extension;
b. It failed to inspect, maintain, repair, replace or otherwise cause the woodchipper to be equipped and sold with all of its original or then recommended parts, instructions and/or warnings;
c. It had removed the woodchipper in-feed safety bar or device, or knew it had been removed, when it sold the woodchipper; and
d. It failed to disclose and/or fairly represent the defective and unreasonably dangerous conditions of its woodchipper.
All four allegations of negligence arise either from the sale of the woodchipper in question or alleged actions which occurred prior to the sale of said woodchipper. Accordingly, for the purpose of the three-year statute of repose found in §
The plaintiffs have claimed that Tardif engaged in a continuing course of conduct which tolled the statute of limitations. See Sherwood v.Danbury Hospital,
"To support a finding of a continuing course of conduct that may toll the statute of limitations, there must be evidence of the breach of a duty that remained in existence after commission of the original wrong related thereto. That duty must not have terminated prior to the commencement of the period allowed for bringing an action for such a wrong." Witt v. St. Vincent's Medical Center,
A duty may continue after the original wrong where there is either a special relationship between the parties giving rise to such a continuing duty or some later wrongful conduct of a defendant related to the prior act. Id.
The plaintiffs have presented no evidence of any "special relationship" with the defendant. In fact, the plaintiffs cannot produce evidence of any relationship between them and Tardif. Tardif did not sell the woodchipper in question to the plaintiff. Thus, there is no evidence of CT Page 12107 any special relationship or ongoing relationship between the plaintiffs and Tardif.
An examination of those cases where the continuing course of conduct doctrine tolled the statute of limitations reveals that there was evidence of a relationship between the parties, almost always consisting of a healthcare provider-patient relationship. (Sherwood v. DanburyHospital,
The only case in which the sale of a product created a continuing duty to warn is Handler v. Remington Arms Co.,
In other cases involving the sale of a product the Supreme Court has not found a continuing duty. Fichera v. Mine Hill Corp.,
Based on the foregoing, the court holds that the action against Luc Tardif is barred by Connecticut General Statutes §
By the court,
Aurigemma, J.
Prokolkin v. General Motors Corporation , 170 Conn. 289 ( 1976 )
Town Bank & Trust Co. v. Benson , 176 Conn. 304 ( 1978 )
D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly , 180 Conn. 430 ( 1980 )
Batick v. Seymour , 186 Conn. 632 ( 1982 )
Giglio v. Connecticut Light & Power Co. , 180 Conn. 230 ( 1980 )
Handler v. Remington Arms Co. , 144 Conn. 316 ( 1957 )
Cross v. Huttenlocher , 185 Conn. 390 ( 1981 )