DocketNumber: No. CV00-0376353S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 5172
Judges: SKOLNICK, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 4/16/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Corporate Cleaning moves to strike the plaintiff's complaint against it on basis that the underlying apportionment complaint filed by defendant 1220 WR Associates against Corporate Cleaners was stricken by the court, CT Page 5173Rush, J., on January 23, 2001. Judge Rush struck the apportionment complaint, citing to Lobovits v. Nemeth, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 348992 (April 27, 1999,Skolnick, J.) (this case exemplifies the split that existed in the Superior Court regarding whether an apportionment complaint could be filed against an independent contractor by a landowner, holding that a landowner could not delegate its non-delegable duty to keep its premises safe and, therefore, striking the apportionment complaint). Corporate Cleaning argues that once the apportionment complaint was stricken, the plaintiff's claim against it is insufficient as a matter of law because the ability to amend is derivative and that the rights afforded to the plaintiff pursuant to General Statutes §
In opposition, Butlein argues that her ability to amend her complaint is not derivative of General Statutes §
The court finds that the plaintiff alleges a sufficient negligence cause of action against Corporate Cleaners. In a decision released January 30, 2001, our Supreme Court held that an independent contractor can also be found to owe a duty to the plaintiff if the relationship between his alleged negligence and the plaintiff's injuries was direct and well within the scope of foreseeability. See Gazo v. Stamford,
In addition, the plaintiff's negligence cause of action against Corporate Cleaners is timely as the accident occurred on February 19, 1999, and General Statutes §
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to strike the plaintiff's amended complaint is denied. CT Page 5174
SKOLNICK, J.