From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ivester v. City of Waterbury

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury
Feb 11, 1999
1999 Ct. Sup. 1635 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999)

Opinion

No. CV94-0123870S

February 11, 1999


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT #113


The defendant City of Waterbury's motion for summary judgment is granted.

In Williams v. New Haven, 243 Conn. 763, the court held that a plaintiff cannot maintain an action in common-law negligence against a municipality in the absence of a statute providing for municipal liability. The plaintiffs allege that Connecticut General Statutes § 52-572n provides the basis for their common-law claims. However, the statute was not plead; the plaintiffs did not name any individual municipal officers, agents or employees pursuant to § 7-465 or any other statute that would invoke the municipality's duty to indemnify. See Williams v. New Haven, supra, 469. Hence there can be no liability absent a statutory provision. There is no material fact as to liability at issue.

Plaintiff argues that the issue of failure to plead § 7-465 should have been raised in a motion to strike. This court concludes that a variety of legal bars to the maintenance of claims may be raised on a motion for summary judgment. See, e.g.,Barrett Builders v. Miller, 215 Conn. 316 (1990) (application of Home Improvement Act); 206 Conn. 495, 500 (1988) and Mingachos v. CBS Inc. (bar of worker's compensation statute).

_____________________________________ SANDRA VILARDI LEHENY, J.


Summaries of

Ivester v. City of Waterbury

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury
Feb 11, 1999
1999 Ct. Sup. 1635 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999)
Case details for

Ivester v. City of Waterbury

Case Details

Full title:OKEMA IVESTER PPA RHONDA IVESTER v. CITY OF WATERBURY, ET AL

Court:Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury

Date published: Feb 11, 1999

Citations

1999 Ct. Sup. 1635 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999)