DocketNumber: No. CV 94-0338748-S
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 7117
Judges: HARTMERE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 6/16/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On September 30, 1992, the plaintiff, Ruth Douglas, on behalf of her son, Marquis Douglas, filed a twelve count complaint against the defendants, Alfred Dawson, Executive Dodge, Orlor Inc., Alton Thomas Jr., and the New Haven Bus Service. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for injuries suffered by her son who was hit by a vehicle driven by Alfred Dawson, when Dawson drove around a bus and hit the plaintiff's son as he crossed Dixwell Avenue. Immediately before he was hit, the plaintiff's son had exited a bus that was bringing children home from a day camp at Albertus Magnus College. The defendants, Executive Dodge, Alfred Dawson and Orlor filed an answer and three special defenses on October 14, 1992. The defendants New Haven Bus Service and Alton Thomas filed an answer and special defense on November 4, 1993.
On March 27, 1995, the New Haven Bus Service and Alton Thomas Jr. filed a "Joint Motion To Cite In Party Defendant", which is presently before the court. The two defendants argue that Albertus Magnus should be brought in as a party defendant because it failed to ensure the safety of the passengers on the bus, who were returning from a day camp at the college. The defendants seek to cite in the college for apportionment purposes, so that its liability will be taken into consideration when liability is apportioned pursuant to General Statutes §
The plaintiffs filed an objection to the defendants' motion to cite in Albertus Magnus on April 10, 1995. The plaintiffs argue that the motion should be denied because the statute of limitations has run against Albertus Magnus and the plaintiffs could not CT Page 7118 recover against them. The plaintiffs also argue that they are aware of no Connecticut case that has allowed a claim for apportionment after the limitations period contained in General Statutes §
DISCUSSION
General Statutes §
There is a split of authority in the Superior Court as to whether to grant a motion to cite in a party defendant for apportionment purposes only, when the statute of limitations has run against that party. See Krynitsky v. Dietiker,
Cases that have allowed a party to be cited in when the statute of limitations has run have found that a passing of the statute of limitations does not make the party immune from liability. "The word immunity generally imports the concept of an exemption from liability. The fact that a claim may be barred by the application of a statute of limitations cannot be regarded as an exemption of liability. In addition, General Statutes §
The cases which permit the citing in of a party defendant for apportionment purposes only reflect the better rule. The plaintiff should not be allowed to recover more against the defendant in this action by a finding that the statute of limitations has run against Albertus Magnus than the plaintiff could recover if Albertus Magnus were a party for apportionment purposes. Accordingly, this court will hold that a party is not "immune from liability" pursuant to General Statutes §
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Joint Motion To Cite In Party Defendant (#119) is granted.
So ordered.
Michael Hartmere Judge of the Superior Court