Opinion
No. X04 CV 05 4005263 S.
December 5, 2006.
RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#147)
The facts and arguments are briefly summarized in the "Notice" dated October 10, 2006 (#163), to which reference is made. I received responses to my request from the three groups of parties (##169, 170 and 174). I view the issues in the framework of Gazo v. City of Stamford, 255 Conn. 245 (2001); Smith v. Greenwich, 278 Conn. 428 (2006); and, to a lesser degree, Lane v. Eisenberg, 34 Conn. L. Rptr. 17 (2003). I reach the following conclusions, though the matters are not entirely free from doubt:
1. The claims of negligence, as to both Abrams and Baigert, fundamentally concern non-delegable duties of possessors of land. "Negligent listing," in this context is functionally a claim of failure to maintain premises or properly to warn of conditions on the premises.
2. If the apportionment plaintiff did not possess the premises, then there is no liability and there is nothing to apportion.
3. If the apportionment defendant in some way co-possessed the premises, then liability would presumably be joint and several. There would still be nothing to apportion, as there would not be potentially different magnitudes of negligence to apportion. See, e.g., Smith, supra. This analysis has no bearing on any indemnity action, of course.
The motion for summary judgment (#147) is granted.