From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vinci v. Sabovic

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford
Mar 16, 1993
1993 Ct. Sup. 2648 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1993)

Summary

holding statute of limitations no defense to claim of apportionment asserted against cited-in defendant

Summary of this case from Lumber Mutual Insurance Co. v. Holmes

Opinion

No. CV92 0127009 S

March 16, 1993.


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO CITE IN PARTY DEFENDANTS


The plaintiffs instituted the present action seeking to recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The defendant has now moved, pursuant to General Statutes 52-102, to cite in additional defendants and sets forth in her motion specific claims of negligence on the part of the corporations sought to be made parties. The plaintiffs have objected to the motion asserting, correctly, that the statute of limitations has expired and, therefore, the claims against the corporations sought to be made parties are barred on the ground that General Statutes 52-102 provides that "no person who is immune from liability shall be made a defendant in the controversy".

The defendants seek to cite in additional parties in accordance with the legislative policy that parties found to be liable are only liable for their proportionate share of recoverable damages pursuant to Tort Reform II. See General Statutes 52-572h. The applicable statute of limitations, General Statutes 52-584, provides that: "No action to recover damages for injury" shall be brought but within the statutory period therein set forth. However, in the present action the defendant, does not seek to impose monetary damages upon additional parties but merely asserts a claim for the assessment her own proportionate share of recoverable damages. Therefore the statute of limitation would not constitute a defense to such a claim. Kennedy v. Martinez, 7 Conn. L. Rptr. 354 (1992) (Rush, J.)

General Statutes 52-102 provides that no person "who is immune from liability" shall be made a defendant. The word immunity generally imports the concept of an "exemption" from liability. See Webster's New International Dictionary (Unabridged) (2d Ed. 1957). The fact that a claim may be barred by the application of a statute of limitations cannot be regarded as an exemption from liability.

Accordingly, the motion of the defendants to cite in additional parties is hereby granted.

RUSH, J.


Summaries of

Vinci v. Sabovic

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford
Mar 16, 1993
1993 Ct. Sup. 2648 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1993)

holding statute of limitations no defense to claim of apportionment asserted against cited-in defendant

Summary of this case from Lumber Mutual Insurance Co. v. Holmes

granting motion to cite in a defendant for purposes of apportionment after the statute of limitations has run

Summary of this case from Barrett v. Scozzafava

granting motion to cite in a defendant for purposes of apportionment after the statute of limitations has run

Summary of this case from Barrett v. Scozzafava

granting motion to cite in a defendant for purposes of apportionment after the statute of limitations has run

Summary of this case from Cardoso v. Cardoso

granting motion to cite in a defendant for purposes of apportionment after the statute of limitations has run

Summary of this case from Cardoso v. Cardoso
Case details for

Vinci v. Sabovic

Case Details

Full title:ROCCO VINCI, ET AL v. CHERYL SABOVIC, ET AL

Court:Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford

Date published: Mar 16, 1993

Citations

1993 Ct. Sup. 2648 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1993)

Citing Cases

VANDEMARK v. NOCE

As to Vandemark's argument regarding Echeandia's alleged immunity due to the expiration of the statute of…

Summit Bank v. Nadler, Philopena Asso.

Additionally, numerous superior courts have allowed a defendant to be joined in an action for purposes of…