DocketNumber: No. CV91 28 41 45 S
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 1255
Judges: COCCO, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 2/8/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
On August 21, 1991, the plaintiff, Daniel Roberts, filed a single count complaint against the defendant, the Homelite Division of Textron, Inc. Roberts claims that he was injured while using a chain saw which Homelite manufactured. Roberts has brought his claim pursuant to Connecticut's product liability statute, General Statutes §
On November 17, 1994, the City or Bridgeport filed a motion to intervene as co-plaintiff and to file an intervening complaint. Bridgeport subsequently filed a memorandum of law in support of its motion to intervene. In its complaint, Bridgeport claims that Roberts was injured during the course of his employment and that pursuant to General Statutes §
On November 29, 1994, Homelite filed an objection to Bridgeport's motion to intervene. Homelite claims that because CT Page 1256 Bridgeport failed to intervene within 30 days of receiving notification of the action, Bridgeport's cause of action has abated.
"If either the employee or the employer brings an action against the third person, he shall immediately notify the other, in writing, by personal presentation or by registered or certified mail, of the action and of the name of the court to which the writ is returnable, and the other may join as a party plaintiff in the action within thirty days after such notification, and, if the other fails to join as a party plaintiff, his right of action against the third person shall abate." General Statutes §
In its objection to the motion to intervene, the defendant, Homelite asserts that the case's original return date was June 25, 1991. Homelite asserts that Bridgeport had "ample notice" about, this case before it filed its motion to intervene. Homelite points out that on June 8, 1993, Bridgeport filed a Motion for Return of Property and Motion for Protective Order in this case.1 Homelite concludes that the motion to intervene is late and should be denied.
In its memorandum in support of its motion to intervene, Bridgeport asserts two arguments. First, it argues that Homelite does not have standing to object to Bridgeport's intervention. Second, Bridgeport argues that it never received proper notice of Roberts' suit and therefore the thirty day period has not begun to run.
"An employer who does not receive notice from an employee concerning the institution of a third party action in accordance with §
Homelite has not submitted any evidence which indicates when, if ever, Bridgeport received notice according to the statute. Without such a showing, the court cannot find that the motion to intervene was filed late. Accordingly, the motion to intervene is granted.
Because of the court's resolution about the timeliness of the motion to intervene, the court does not have to decide whether Homelite has standing to object to Bridgeport's motion to intervene.
COCCO, JUDGE