DocketNumber: No. CV97 034 89 92
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4898, 21 Conn. L. Rptr. 651
Judges: STODOLINK, J.
Filed Date: 4/7/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The defendant filed an apportionment complaint on February 3, 1998, naming Lee Miro d/b/a Miro Brothers as the apportionment defendant. Miro is alleged to be the party responsible for plowing and clearing snow in the parking lot where Adrienne Lobovits fell. On February 6, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the apportionment complaint on the grounds that the defendant, as owner of the premises, had a non-delegable duty to keep the premises in a safe condition. The defendant filed an objection to the motion to strike dated February 23, 1998, arguing that the apportionment defendant, as an independent contractor, can be held liable for the plaintiffs' injuries. The matter was heard by the court on March 2, 1998.
"The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the complaint. The court must construe the facts in the complaint most favorably to the plaintiff. . . . If facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Faulkner v. United Technologies Corp.,
The defendant owed the plaintiff a non-delegable duty to keep the premises where the plaintiff was injured in a safe condition. See Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury at Waterbury, Docket No. 098122 (October 11, 1996) (Sullivan, J.) (common law obligation to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition is a non-delegable duty); D. Wright, J. Fitzgerald W. Ankerman, Connecticut Law of Torts (3d Ed. 1991) § 67 (possessor of land cannot delegate the duty owned to an invitee).
"It has been held that the employer of an independent contractor may be vicariously liable for the torts of the contractor . . . [w]here the employer has attempted to shift to a contractor a nondelegable duty. . . . [T]he possessor of land cannot delegate the duty owed to an invitee." Wood v. ChaletSusse International, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at Meriden, Docket No. 245558 (May 18, 1995) (Silbert, J.) (
Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendant's apportionment complaint is granted.
STODOLINK, J.