DocketNumber: No. CV00-0158782S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 3038, 29 Conn. L. Rptr. 157
Judges: ROGERS, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 2/28/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On April 20, 2000, the defendants, Brignano, Rollins Leasing Corp., and Greencycle of Connecticut, filed a cross claim against Metro-North, seeking indemnification and contribution against the plaintiffs' claims. On August 8, 2000, Metro-North filed a motion to strike the indemnification cross claim, on the ground that, as a matter of law, no reasonable jury could find that Metro-North had exclusive control over the accident. On September 18, 2000, the cross claimants filed an objection to the motion to strike on the ground that they sufficiently alleged all four elements for an indemnity action.
In support of its motion, Metro-North argues that the indemnity cross claim is legally insufficient because in order to assert an indemnity action a party must establish that the other defendant had exclusive control over the accident. Specifically, Metro-North argues that in cases which involve an accident between multiple vehicles on a public highway, such as the present case, it is impossible to assert that one of the parties had exclusive control. The cross claimants disagree and argue that it is a question of fact for the jury whether a certain party had exclusive control over the accident, and note that there is a split of authority in the Superior Court on this issue. In addition, the cross claimants argue that the rationale in striking indemnity claims is not present here because this accident did not happen on a public highway, but on train tracks that Metro-North had exclusive control over.
"[I]ndemnity involves a claim for reimbursement in full from one on whom a primary liability is claimed to rest, while contribution involves a claim for reimbursement of a share of a payment necessarily made by the claimant which equitably should have been paid in part by others." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Crotta v. HomeCT Page 3040Depot, Inc.,
"There is a split of authority in the Superior Court concerning whether an allegation in a third party complaint that a third party defendant was in `exclusive control of the situation' is legally sufficient to support an indemnity claim arising out of an automobile accident when both parties are alleged to have committed active negligence." Keller v.Irizarry, Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford at Milford, Docket No. 067999 (May 8, 2000, Arnold, J.) (
Cases which support the conclusion that exclusive control may be possible in a multiple vehicle accident for an indemnity action include:Pettway v. Gonzalez, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 345423 (January 12, 1999, Nadeau, J.) (
The issue of exclusive control is ordinarily a question of fact. SeeSkuzinski v. Bouchard Fuels, Inc., supra,
This action does not include special circumstances that would render the issue of exclusive control an issue of law. Unlike the majority of the aforementioned cases which involve multiple motor vehicles on a public highway, this case involves a train hitting a motor vehicle on train tracks. Here, the cross claimants have made legally sufficient factual allegations to support a claim that Metro-North had exclusive control of the situation. The cross claimants allege that the truck became stuck on the tracks because Metro-North failed to properly maintain the tracks, which caused the tracks to become defective. The cross claimants also allege that Metro-North failed to maintain a proper warning system and failed to erect a gate to stop traffic from crossing the tracks. The cross claimants also allege that Metro-North operated its train at an excessive speed, failed to respond to warnings of the truck on the tracks, failed to observe, slow down and then stop its train when it should have done so. Finally, the cross claimants allege that Metro-North failed to maintain its brakes in good working order in order to stop before colliding with the truck.
In reviewing these numerous allegations, the cross claimants have alleged sufficient facts which, if proven, a jury could find that Metro-North had exclusive control over the situation. Accordingly, Metro-North's motion to strike is denied.
CHASE T. ROGERS, J.