DocketNumber: No. CV 01-0457926 S
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 13697
Judges: ZOARSKI, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 10/24/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
On March 5, 2002, Carriage Hill filed an apportionment complaint against the apportionment defendant, The Brickman Group, Ltd. (Brickman), alleging that Montano's injuries were caused by Brickman's negligence in allowing leaves and debris to accumulate in the common walkway.1 On May 17, 2002, Montano filed an amended complaint adding a third count against Brickman alleging negligence.
On July 2, 2002, Brickman filed a motion to strike the apportionment complaint together with a supporting memorandum. Carriage Hill countered with a memorandum in opposition filed on July 12, 2002.
"A motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading, and, consequently, requires no factual findings by the trial court." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Suffield Development Associates Ltd. Partnership v. National Loan Investors, L.P.,
Brickman, an independent contractor, moves to strike the apportionment complaint on the ground that Carriage Hill had a nondelegable duty to maintain the common grounds. It argues that when a nondelegable duty CT Page 13698 exists an apportionment action is inappropriate. Carriage Hill asserts in opposition that because Brickman, an independent contractor, owes a duty to anyone who may be forseeably injured by its negligence, Brickman is susceptible to share in liability proportionately with Carriage Hill, the landowner, making apportionment of liability proper.
"A possessor of land has a duty to an invitee to reasonably inspect and maintain the premises in order to render them reasonably safe." Morin v. Bell Court Condominium Assn., Inc.,
Although it is settled that a landowner has a nondelegable duty to maintain its property, the trial courts are split on the issue of whether a landowner may apportion its own nondelegable duty to an independent contractor. Hoffmeister v. Westbury Condominium Assn., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV 98 0582041 (December 6, 2001, Fineberg, J.T.R.). This court, however, has previously ruled that an apportionment claim that seeks to apportion liability for breach of a landowner's nondelegable duty to an independent contractor is legally insufficient. Falcon v. Deerfield Woods Condominiums Assn., Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV 98 0418521 (December 18, 2000, Zoarski, J.T.R.). Because Carriage Hill has a nondelegable duty to maintain the common areas of the property, it is improper for Carriage Hill to file an apportionment complaint against Brickman.
The apportionment complaint is legally insufficient because a nondelegable duty exits, therefore the motion to strike the apportionment complaint is granted.
___________________ Howard F. Zoarski Judge Trial Referee