DocketNumber: No. CV 95 0052173 S
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 2935, 18 Conn. L. Rptr. 636
Judges: SFERRAZZA, J.
Filed Date: 4/8/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The main plaintiff, Marylou Bradley, has sued the main defendants seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained because of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle driven by CT Page 2935-A Timothy Randall and owned by Bruce Randall. The Randalls, in turn, have filed an apportionment complaint, under P.A. 95-111 § 1(a), alleging in the first count that the town contributed to the accident by installing and maintaining a defectively designed intersection. The second count of the apportionment complaint avers that the Randalls are entitled to indemnification from the town for any damages they may have to pay arising from the accident.
The town argues that a municipality can never be an apportionment defendant based on an allegation of injuries caused by a defective highway. The court agrees.
With respect to municipalities, C.G. §
Under §
In order for the apportionment of liability to apply, the Randalls would have to be partly responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. The Randalls can only be liable if Timothy Randall's conduct proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. Lombardi v.J.A. Bergen Dairy Farms, Inc.,
This reasoning applies with equal force to both counts. In CT Page 2935-C addition, the indemnification count is inappropriate in an apportionment complaint. Public Act 95-111 § 1(a) indicates that a defendant to the main action may serve a writ, summons, and complaint upon a third party but only if that third party "is or may be liable" to the main plaintiff. In the indemnification count, the Randalls claim that the town is liable to them, defendants to the main action.
For these reasons, the motion to strike the apportionment complaint is granted.
Sferrazza, J.