DocketNumber: No. CV91 03 52 78
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 8319, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 1091
Judges: McGRATH, JUDGE
Filed Date: 9/2/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
On March 25, 1991, plaintiff Louis Diaz filed this action for personal injuries against defendants Shibo Wu, Matthew Germain, and United Sewer and Drain Cleaning, Inc. On June 17, 1991, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in four counts alleging the negligence and recklessness of defendants Wu and Germain. On August 19, 1991, defendant Wu filed an answer and first special defense alleging the negligence of the plaintiff and a second special defense alleging that plaintiff received collateral source payments entitling defendant Wu to a set-off. On September 3, 1991, plaintiff filed reply denying both special defenses. On September 5, 1991, defendant Wu filed a claim for the jury docket. On March 20, 1992, defendant Wu filed a request for leave to amend the answer to add a third special defense alleging that plaintiff received $6,000.00 from released defendants Germain and United Sewer and Drain Cleaning, Inc.
On May 19, 1992, plaintiff filed a motion to strike defendant CT Page 8320 Wu's second and third special defenses. Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law along with his motion. Defendant Wu did not file opposition to the motion on time. One was filed July 29, 1992.
The motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading, Practice Book 152; Westport Bank Trust Co. v. Corcoran, Mallin Aresco,
Special Defense — Collateral Source Payments
Plaintiff moves to strike the second special defense on the ground of legal insufficiency in that the defense improperly introduces into the pleadings the issue of collateral sources.
The plaintiff replied to the second special defense on September 3, 1991 prior to his filing a motion to strike that defense on May 19, 1992. Accordingly, the plaintiff in filing pleadings out of order has waived his right to attack the legal sufficiency of that defense. It is therefore found that the motion should be denied as to the second special defense.
Third Special Defense — Release of Co-defendants
Plaintiff moves to strike the third special defense on the ground that General Statutes
General Statutes
a release of a tortfeasor . . . shall not be read to a jury or in any other way introduced in evidence by either party at any time during the trial of the cause of action against any other joint tortfeasors. . . .
"The purpose of this statute is to `ensure that jury verdicts would not be influenced by the knowledge of a partial settlement."' CT Page 8321 Belanger v. Village Pub I, Inc.,
The only published case dealing with this issue is Sheppa v. Adams,
This Court adopts the rational of the Sheppa case, and accordingly denies the motion to strike this special defense.
WILLIAM McGRATH, JUDGE