From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Myers v. Long

Superior Court, New London County
Oct 24, 1961
23 Conn. Supp. 93 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1961)

Summary

In Myers, the court refused to allow the joinder to two separate car accidents because they did not share sufficient issues of fact.

Summary of this case from Meyer v. Brignole, Bush and Lewis, LLC

Opinion

File No. 27601

H's truck was damaged when it was hit by L's car. M aided in disengaging the truck and the car. Thereafter, K drove an automobile into L's car, and as a result M, who was then standing on a safety island, was injured. Since two different accidents were involved and there was no common question of law and fact, H's cause of action and M's cause of action were misjoined.

Memorandum filed October 24, 1961

Memorandum on demurrer to complaint. Demurrer sustained.

Greenberg Hendel, of New London, for the plaintiffs.

Schofield, Fay Courtney, of Hartford, for the named defendant only.


A truck owned by the plaintiff The Hendel Petroleum Company was damaged when it was hit by a car owned and operated by the defendant Long. After the collision the plaintiff Myers arrived at the scene and helped to disengage the truck and the Long car. Thereafter, the defendant Kelly drove the Voyer automobile into the rear of the Long car, pushing in into the plaintiff Myers, who was then standing on a safety island, injuring him. Both plaintiffs join in one cause of action; the plaintiff Myers seeks damages for claimed injuries under the first count, and the plaintiff corporation asks for damages to its truck under the second count. The plaintiffs admit there were two occurrences but claim the damage and injuries arose as a result of both.

The defendant Long interposed a demurrer alleging a misjoinder of causes of action. Under the statute and rules of practice, distinct causes of action may not be joined in one complaint unless they arise out of the same transaction or transactions connected with the same subject of action and unless they affect all of the parties to the action — even though policy favors litigation of related controversies in a single action. General Statutes § 52-97(7); Practice Book § 35; Veits v. Hartford, 134 Conn. 428. The remedy for misjoinder of causes is taken by demurrer. Practice Book § 99. These series of events, accidents or torts do not come within the rule set forth in Goggins v. Fawcett, 145 Conn. 709, 711, where it was held that the acts had "some connection with each other, in which both parties are concerned, and by which the legal relations of the parties have been altered" and that they were "a group of related acts which went to make up one entire course of conduct and constituted a single transaction within the meaning of the statute."

It is further claimed by the plaintiffs that under § 52-97(2) of the General Statutes they can join several causes of action because it is provided therein that a claim of injuries to person and property may be united in the same cause of action. However, that section provides that a plaintiff, in the singular, is permitted to include in his complaint causes of action which pertain to both personal injuries and property damage. Likewise, plaintiffs may only join in one action as plaintiffs when there is a "common question of law or fact." § 52-104. A common question of law or fact is not presented here. It is evident that there were two plaintiffs involved in two different accidents in which more than one question must be litigated.


Summaries of

Myers v. Long

Superior Court, New London County
Oct 24, 1961
23 Conn. Supp. 93 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1961)

In Myers, the court refused to allow the joinder to two separate car accidents because they did not share sufficient issues of fact.

Summary of this case from Meyer v. Brignole, Bush and Lewis, LLC

In Myers v. Long, supra, 23 Conn.Sup. 93-94 Judge Cotter sustained a demurrer to claims brought by two separate plaintiffs against two separate defendants for injuries sustained in immediately successive automobile accidents on the basis of misjoinder.

Summary of this case from Lewis v. Greater New Haven Transit Dist.

In Myers v. Long, supra, 23 Conn. Sup. 93-94 Judge Cotter sustained a demurrer to claims brought by two separate plaintiffs against two separate defendants for injuries sustained in immediately successive automobile accidents on the basis of misjoinder.

Summary of this case from Bailey v. Thomas

In Meyers, the court held that the two plaintiffs had improperly joined two distinct and separate claims into one action.

Summary of this case from Hatfield v. Antonino Pontiac-Buick-GMC Truck

In Meyers, the vehicle operated by plaintiff #1 was struck by the vehicle driven by defendant #1, then plaintiff #2 stopped his vehicle and was rendering assistance, at which time defendant #2 drove his vehicle into defendant #1's vehicle, which caused the vehicle to jump the curb and strike plaintiff #2. Meyers v. Long, supra, 23 Conn. Sup. 93. Therefore, Meyers, is factually dissimilar to the present case, because it deals with the issue of separate plaintiffs joining to sue separate defendants who committed independent and unrelated acts.

Summary of this case from Hatfield v. Antonino Pontiac-Buick-GMC Truck
Case details for

Myers v. Long

Case Details

Full title:ALFRED M. MYERS ET AL. v. MICHAEL T. LONG, JR., ET AL

Court:Superior Court, New London County

Date published: Oct 24, 1961

Citations

23 Conn. Supp. 93 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1961)
176 A.2d 886

Citing Cases

Hatfield v. Antonino Pontiac-Buick-GMC Truck

" The defendant relies solely on the case of Meyers v. Long, 23 Conn. Sup. 93 (1961), which states that…

Bailey v. Thomas

On April 22, 1999 Cordeiro moved to strike counts three and four against him all of the parties to the action…