DocketNumber: No. CV 98 0146687
Citation Numbers: 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 8958
Judges: PELLEGRINO, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 7/8/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
"The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaints . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Peter-Michael, Inc. v. Sea ShellAssociates,
In determining contractor liability, "[i]t is now the almost CT Page 8959 universal rule that the contractor is liable to all those who may foreseeably be injured by the structure, not only when he fails to disclose dangerous conditions known to him, but also when the work is negligently done. This applies not only to contractors doing original work, but also to those who make repairs, or install parts, as well as supervising architects and engineers." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Zapata v. Burns,
The facts alleged in the revised apportionment complaint state that Cape Verdean is an independent contractor who had control of the premises at the time of the plaintiff's alleged injury. If the allegations in the revised apportionment complaint are proven, Cape Verdean could reasonably be liable for any injuries sustained by the plaintiff upon a factual determination that the losses were foreseeable.
The movant argues that an owner cannot shift a nondelegable duty to maintain property to a third party. See Prince v.Waldbaum's, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Docket No. 330786 (November 16, 1998, Moraghan, J.) (
The cases cited above and relied on by the movant held that the owner has a nondelegable duty to maintain the premises which could not be delegated so as to relieve it of liability. There are no allegations in this lawsuit either by the plaintiff or the CT Page 8960 apportionment plaintiff as to what entity owned or controlled the premises. The plaintiff alleges that the Housing Authority was "obligated to maintain" the premises, (Count one Par 3.) And that Alca "performed certain repairs" on the steps. (Count 2 Par 3) and engaged Cape Verdean to perform work on the steps. The apportionment complaint alleges that Cape Verdean performed services on the steps.(Revised Apportionment Complaint Par 5). This is not the case of a landlord/owner/parties in control of the premises attempting to delegate a nondelegable duty. This is the case of a contractor attempting to apportion liability to a subcontractor. It is clear that Alca is neither the owner of the premises nor was it in control of the premises and therefore it could not have a nondelegable duty that would preclude liability as to Cape Verdean. Cape Verdean may have shared in the negligence if the allegations of the apportionment complaint are proved. The Motion to Strike the Revised Apportionment Complaint is denied.
PELLEGRINO, (P)