DocketNumber: No. 303360
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6914
Judges: O'KEEFE, JUDGE
Filed Date: 7/22/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
On July 23, 1991, the defendants entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiff for the sum of $100,000 and were forever released from liability to the plaintiff for any claim arising out of the incident which caused plaintiff's injuries. See Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's Motion dated April 30, 1992.
On April 20, 1992, Seaspray, pursuant to General Statutes
On April 30, 1992, plaintiff filed an objection to Seaspray's motion to cite in the released defendants on the ground that they have settled with the plaintiff and are not necessary for a determination of the questions involved in his case. In plaintiff's May 13, 1992, memorandum of law in opposition to Seaspray's motion, plaintiff first argues that it is not necessary to cite in settled third parties in order for the trier to determine the proportionate share of liability. Plaintiff argues that the legislative intent of General Statutes
General Statutes
Upon motion made by any party or nonparty to a civil action, the person named in the party's motion or the nonparty so moving, as the case may be . . . (2) shall be made a party by the court if that person is necessary for complete determination or settlement of any question involved therein; provided no person who is immune from liability shall be made a defendant in the controversy.
In Camp v. Zambarano,
In Camp, the plaintiff's decedent was killed in an automobile accident, and the plaintiff brought suit against Pauline Zambarano and Richard Zambarano, the driver and owner, respectively, of the car involved in the accident. Id. The plaintiff later cited in two additional defendants, McClinch Crane, Inc. and Elmer H. Sega. The plaintiff alleged in the amended complaint that Sega, McClinch Crane's employee, was operating a mobile crane owned by McClinch in a no passing zone and that the collision occurred when the Zambarano vehicle attempted to pass the crane. Thereafter, the plaintiff settled the claim against the Zambaranos and their insurance carrier for $500,000 in return for a full release from liability in the action. The remaining defendants then impleaded the Zambaranos as third party defendants under General Statutes
After discussing the relationship between subsections (d), (f) and (n) of
It is apparent from considering the statute as a whole that the percentage of negligence, and therefore the percentage and amount of damages, paid by the third party plaintiffs will not increase in any way whether or not the released defendants remain in the case. CT Page 6916 The trier will still have to include any percentage of negligence attributable to the released defendants in determining the percentage of liability and share of damages of the third party plaintiffs. Under the statute, once a defendant is in the case, any negligence of that defendant must be included in determining the percentage of liability of other defendants. The third party defendant here can introduce evidence to establish the percentage of negligence of the released defendants even though they are no longer parties.
Id., 144. The court went on to hold that because the third party plaintiffs had no right of contribution or indemnity from the released defendants under any situation, they had no legal right to maintain a third party complaint against them.
A similar result was reached in Freitas v. Ravizza,
In the instant matter, as in Camp and Freitas, Seaspray has no right as a third party plaintiff to indemnity or contribution from the released defendants. Moreover, because
O'Keefe, Judge