DocketNumber: No. CV96 015 20 50
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 10238
Judges: MOTTOLESE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/1/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
As currently composed, said authorizations would leave to a treater the sole power to determine proximate cause. ["records . . . relating to car accident of March 18, 1990., etc.] These determinations are for the trier of fact, possibly to be aided by treater's opinions. However, defendants are not to be hamstrung in cross-examination of a treater's opinion on causation by plaintiff withholding other medical findings or complaints of the patient from defendant. CT Page 10239
Considering the public policy issue first, the Connecticut cases which hold that an indemnity provision which purports to indemnify the indemnitee against his own negligence is void as against public policy are limited to those which have been made void by statute, §
The validity and enforceability of the contractual indemnity provision involved in this case is controlled by Burkle v. Carand Truck Leasing Co.,
The court finds this language to be clear and unequivocal. As in Burkle, it applies to any injury attributable to defendant's negligence. While the court finds the public policy argument compelling as did the court in Petraglia v. BenincasaConstruction, CV93 030 68 11 J. D. Fairfield at Bridgeport, August 18, 1997 (Skolnick, J.), this court feels constrained by theBurkle case. Apparently, the justification for the view expressed in the Burkle case is that persons in business have the right to allocate between them and their customers the risk and consequent cost of accidents which are apt to occur while they are engaged in their transaction. Norfolk and Western Railway Co. v. HardingTrading Co., Inc.,
A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE, JUDGE