Opinion
No. CV-04-0200833
October 6, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The issue before the court is the applicability of the Connecticut Product Liability Act, General Statutes § 52-572m et seq., to a corporation that provided a school with an allegedly dangerous refrigerator/cooler, which caused an injury to one of the students.
The plaintiff, Hector M. Estrella, brought the present action alleging the defendant, Sodexho, Inc., to be a "product seller," as defined in the Connecticut Product Liability Act of a refrigerator/cooler located at the Stillmeadow School in Stamford, Connecticut. The plaintiff alleges that his son, Hector F. Estrella, the minor plaintiff, was injured when he attempted to get a milk carton from said refrigerator/cooler. The complaint alleges violations of the Connecticut Product Liability Act for providing a dangerous and defective cooler, failing to warn, failing to instruct, breach of implied warranties and breach of express warranties. The defendant has moved to strike the amended complaint, dated July 20, 2004, asserting that the plaintiff has failed to allege facts which, if proven, would support a finding that the defendant was the "product seller" of the refrigerator/cooler that caused the injury, as defined by General Statutes § 52-572m(a). According to the defendant, the plaintiff did not assert that the defendant sold the actual defective product to the minor plaintiff, as required under the statute.
"The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the complaint. The court must construe the facts in the complaint most favorably to the plaintiff . . . A motion to strike is properly granted if the complaint alleges mere conclusions of law that are unsupported by the facts alleged." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc., 224 Conn. 210, 214-5, 618 A.2d 25 (1992).
The Connecticut Product Liability Act authorizes bringing a product liability claim against "product sellers." General Statutes § 52-572n(a). "`Product seller' means any person or entity, including a manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor or retailer who is engaged in the business of selling such products whether the sale is for resale or for use or consumption." General Statutes § 52-572m(a). "[B]ecause the [Connecticut Product Liability Act] governs the statutory liability of product sellers `for harm caused by a product,' General Statutes § 52-572n (a), the plaintiff must plead and prove that the item which caused him harm was in fact the defendant's `product' within the meaning of the Act . . . [F]or the purpose of the Act, a `product' is any item, thing or commodity which, upon acquiring its physical existence and identity, through the process of manufacture or otherwise, is put in the stream of commerce either by sale, for use, consumption or resale, or by lease or bailment. To properly state a cause of action under the [Connecticut Product Liability Act], a plaintiff must therefore allege facts which, if proved at trial, will establish that the thing which caused him harm was a thing which the defendant sold, leased or bailed to or any person, and thereby placed in the stream of commerce." (Emphasis added.) Bobryk v. Lincoln Amusements, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. CV 95 0547084 (January 5, 1996, Sheldon, J.) ( 15 Conn. L. Rptr. 617, 619).
The Connecticut Product Liability Act does not require, as the defendant claims, that the product allegedly causing the injury had been sold by the defendant to the plaintiff. Quite to the contrary, the statute specifically provides that "[a] claim may be asserted successfully under . . . sections [52-572m to 52-572q, inclusive] notwithstanding the claimant did not buy the product from or enter into any contractual relationship with the product seller." General Statutes § 52-572n(b).
The plaintiff's complaint does contain allegations of all facts necessary to maintain a cause of action under the Connecticut Product Liability Act. The defendant's motion to strike is therefore denied.
HILLER, J.