DocketNumber: File No. 66830
Citation Numbers: 491 A.2d 1126, 40 Conn. Super. Ct. 266, 40 Conn. Supp. 266
Judges: GAFFNEY, J.
Filed Date: 2/8/1985
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
The court has for its consideration the defendant Craig Peters' motion for summary judgment. The motion is predicated on a claimed bar to any recovery by the plaintiff because of the applicable statute of limitations.
By way of background, the plaintiff was a Naugatuck High School student who, it is alleged, was injured during a physical education class at the school. The incident occurred on January 18, 1980, and, as a result, the plaintiff's prior counsel brought suit in this court naming the borough of Naugatuck as the sole defendant in an action founded on the negligence of Peters, the teacher who had charge of the class. This action was concluded on the granting of the defendant borough's motion for summary judgment. The court,O'Brien, J., in its memorandum of decision dated August 30, 1983, held that the borough was not a proper party and could not be held liable to the plaintiff for what was alleged to have occurred.
The subject lawsuit was instituted by the plaintiff's new counsel on September 13, 1983.1 Named as defendants therein were the Naugatuck board of education2 and Peters.
A key ingredient of the present action is the allegation of paragraph one of the amended complaint which *Page 268
cites §
The plaintiff argues that the prior action was concluded summarily because his attorney sued the wrong party. He urges that §
Section
The quoted language is clear and unambiguous. The defendant's claim that the statute is here inapplicable, being intended to apply to agents and corporations and mistakes arising from suit against one, rather than the other, is unpersuasive.
Like its companion statute, §
No claim is made by Peters that he was uninformed of the original action or in any respect kept in the dark by suit having been instituted against an improper party. From the inception of the original lawsuit, Peters' actions, and his alone, were the principal and underlying basis of the plaintiff's claim for relief. It does not appear that he has suffered any cognizable prejudice by the passage of time.
The clear language and intent of the statute militate strongly against Peters' argument that to allow the plaintiff to pursue his remedy in the present action is to render the statute of limitations virtually meaningless.
Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied.
Baker v. Baningoso , 134 Conn. 382 ( 1948 )
Gallo v. G. Fox & Co. , 148 Conn. 327 ( 1961 )
Finkle v. Carroll , 134 Conn. App. 278 ( 2012 )
City of Bridgeport v. Admiral Associates, No. Cv98-035277 (... , 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 2099 ( 2001 )
Isidro v. State, No. Cr 99 0059884s (Jul. 9, 1999) , 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 8960 ( 1999 )
Woolford v. Mark IV Construction, No. 364095 (Dec. 17, 1996) , 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 6589 ( 1996 )
Billerback v. Cerminara, No. Cv98 033 30 02 S (Jan. 23, ... , 29 Conn. L. Rptr. 267 ( 2001 )
Costello v. City of Norwalk, No. Cv90 0268834s (Nov. 16, ... , 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 4269 ( 1990 )
Hammond v. Pickett, No. Cv01 38 05 85 S (Nov. 20, 2001) , 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 15459 ( 2001 )
Isidro v. State, No. Cr 99 0059884s (Jul. 9, 1999) , 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 9521 ( 1999 )
Hall v. Bender, No. Cv01-0163428s (Jun. 29, 2001) , 30 Conn. L. Rptr. 176 ( 2001 )
Chomicz v. Amer. Legion Meriden Post 45, No. Cv95-0375597s (... , 16 Conn. L. Rptr. 383 ( 1996 )
Burnham v. Pierre, No. Cv 92-0519308 (Feb. 22, 1994) , 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 1142 ( 1994 )
Perez v. City of Meriden, No. Cv98-0262436s (Aug. 11, 1998) , 22 Conn. L. Rptr. 511 ( 1998 )