DocketNumber: No. CV 29 86 53S
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5253-S
Judges: BALLEN, J. CT Page 5253-T
Filed Date: 8/30/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On June 2, 1995, Bridgeport Hospital filed a two count revised third-party complaint alleging violation of the Connecticut Product Liability Act (CPLA), General Statutes § 52- 572m, et. seq., against the third-party defendants, D.O. Weaver Co. (Weaver) and Medcraft Corp. (Medcraft). In count one, Bridgeport Hospital alleges that Weaver manufactured and sold a skin preparation cream known as Omniprep, which was used during the test performed on the plaintiff, that the Omniprep was defective, and that any liability Bridgeport Hospital may have to the plaintiff arises out of the defective Omniprep. In count two, Bridgeport Hospital alleges that Medcraft manufactured and sold an electrode cream known as Medcream, which was used during the test performed on the plaintiff, that the Medcream was defective, and that any liability Bridgeport Hospital may have to the plaintiff arises out of the defective Medcream.
On June 6, 1995, Weaver filed a motion to strike count one of the revised third-party complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the CPLA does not apply to commercial losses between commercial parties. Weaver also filed a memorandum of law in support. Bridgeport Hospital filed a memorandum in opposition to Weaver's motion to strike on August 17, 1995.
"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." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Novametrix Medical Systems v. BOC Group, Inc.,
Weaver contends that count one of Bridgeport Hospital's third-party complaint is legally insufficient in that the CPLA does not permit commercial parties to recover a commercial loss. Bridgeport Hospital replies that the CPLA is the only remedy available to it, that it is not a commercial party, and that the damages it seeks are not a commercial loss.
Section
The CPLA does not define the terms "commercial party" or "commercial loss." In Thivierge v. Fortress Scientific Limited,
Superior Court, judicial district of New London at Norwich, Docket No. 100790 (June 14, 1993, Teller, J.,
While there is no authority which designates a hospital a commercial party for purposes of the CPLA, there is also no authority to the contrary. Nevertheless, a hospital has been considered a commercial entity in other contexts. For purposes of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) a hospital is considered to fall within CUTPA's definition of trade and commerce. See, e.g., Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. 263026 (June 2, 1995, Gordon, J.); Brown v. Riverside Health,
Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New Britain at New Britain, Docket No. 534043 (November 22, 1995, Wagner, J.):Venturi v. William W. Backus Hospital, Superior Court, judicial district of New London at New London, Docket No. 523510 (July 1, 1993, Hendel, J.); Lutson v. Bridgeport Hospital, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 268229 (August 10, 1990, Jones, J.). Furthermore, in the context of zoning, the court in Daughters of St. Paul v. Zoning Board,
"`Commercial loss' within the meaning of the Products Liability Act has reference to loss of profits or consequential economic losses as opposed to property damage and personal injuries." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Danbury v. TopsideSealers, Inc., supra. In Producto Machine Co. v. AjaxMagnethermic Corp., Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 236005 (November 10, 1987, Burns, J.,
Should Bridgeport Hospital be found liable to the plaintiff, such damages to the hospital cannot be considered either property damage or personal injury, and therefore must be considered consequential economic losses. Thus, Bridgeport Hospital must be considered a commercial party, and any damages it may incur as a result of the negligence action must be considered a commercial loss under the CPLA. As the allegations demonstrate that such a judgment would be a commercial loss between commercial parties, such a claim may not be asserted under the CPLA, but rather must be brought under the Uniform Commercial Code.
Accordingly, Weaver's motion to strike count one of Bridgeport Hospital's third-party complaint is granted.
BALLEN, J.