DocketNumber: No. CV86-235373
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 5093, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 808
Judges: LEWIS, J.
Filed Date: 6/4/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The original pleading in this case is dated October 27, 1986, and is in four counts: (i) negligence on the part of one Elizabeth Sawyer while operating her motor vehicle near the intersection of Barnum Avenue Cutoff and Longbrook Avenue in Stratford on November 12, 19841: (ii) a claim against the Town of Stratford for "nuisance" arising out of an alleged malfunctioning traffic light2; (iii) a claim under the highway defect statute, General Statutes
The plaintiff, Bonnie Loehn, has filed an amended complaint dated October 8, 1991, which is in three counts: (i) the first reiterates the nuisance claim against Stratford; (ii) the second claims that Rosenshien was negligent in a number of ways, including failing to test the traffic light, in delaying its installation, in failing to have an overhead warning sign, and CT Page 5094 also with respect to the "design of the driveway and traffic signal," claiming inadequate sight distances along both the railroad crest and Route 1; and (iii) against Rosenshien under the product liability law, General Statutes
Rosenshien's motion to strike, Practice Book 155, count two of the amended complaint dated October 8, 1991, claims that this count asserts a new cause of action, and thus violates the applicable two year statute of limitations for personal injury caused by negligence, General Statutes
The plaintiff in this case has introduced for the first time allegations concerning design defects relating to the absence of an overhead warning sign, and also to inadequate sight distances. This states a new and different cause of action. I believe our rules do not permit the striking solely of parts of a count, viz. subparagraphs (c), (d) and (e), but rather require the striking of the whole second count on statute of limitations grounds, although subparagraphs (a) and (b) do relate back to the original complaint.
Rosenshien's other ground for striking the second count of the amended complaint is the exclusivity provision of the product liability statute, General Statutes
Since count two is being stricken on statute of limitations grounds, this argument need not be addressed. However, if the plaintiff chooses to plead over, and include the negligence allegations found to relate back to the original complaint, the exclusivity issue could rise again.
Burkert v. Petrol Plus of Naugatuck Inc.,
In this case it is not clear whether Rosenshien is a product seller. If this defendant concedes in its answer that it is a product seller, then a motion to strike a repleaded negligence count would be in order.
The second count of the October 8, 1991 complaint is stricken as several of its allegations of negligence fail to relate back to the original complaint, and thus implicate the two-year statute of limitations.
So Ordered.
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 4th day of June, 1992.
WILLIAM B. LEWIS, JUDGE