DocketNumber: No. CV98-0262436S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8739, 22 Conn. L. Rptr. 511
Judges: DUNNELL, J. CT Page 8740
Filed Date: 8/11/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Plaintiff responds that the action is timely as it is brought pursuant to General Statutes §§
The accident underlying this action occurred on August 27, 1993. The original action under General Statutes §
General Statutes §
Sec.
52-592 . Accidental failure of suit; allowance of new action. (a) If any action, commenced within the time limited by law, has failed one or more times to be tried on its merits because of insufficient service or return of the writ due to unavoidable accident or the default or neglect of the officer to whom it was committed, or because the action has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction, or the action has been otherwise avoided or defeated by the death of a party or for any matter of form; or if, in any such action after a verdict for the plaintiff, the judgment has been set aside, or if a judgment of nonsuit has been rendered or a judgment for the plaintiff reversed, the plaintiff, or, if the plaintiff is dead and the action by law survives, his executor or administrator, may commence a new action, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, for the same cause at any time within one year after the determination of the original action or after the reversal of the judgment.
General Statutes §
Sec.
52-593 . Action against, wrong defendant; allowance of new action. When a plaintiff in any civil action has failed to obtain judgment by reason of failure to name the right person as CT Page 8741 defendant therein, the plaintiff may bring a new action and the statute of limitations shall not be a bar thereto if service of process in the new action is made within one year after the termination of the original action. If service of process in the original action has been made upon an agent of the defendant named in the new action, or if the defendant in the new action is a corporation and service in the original action has been made upon an officer or agent of the corporation, notice of any claim for damage shall be sufficient if given in the original action, pursuant to statutory provisions, to any officer or agent of the defendant in the new action.
A literal reading of these sections would "save" the plaintiffs action. Defendant claims that case law has interpreted this section to preclude it.
Defendant claims that Collins v. City of Meriden,
Defendant also cites Pierce v. Town of North Canaan, Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Docket No. 067137 (September 21, 1995) (
Defendant cites Fabiano v. Wolcot, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. 140495 (September 8, 1997) (
In short, defendant cites no authority to support the proposition that §
This court finds it odd that both parties cite numerous Superior Court decisions and not Lacasse.3
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.
Dunnell, J.