From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Quinones v. Ruemmele

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport
Dec 20, 1991
1991 Ct. Sup. 10208 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1991)

Opinion

No. CV91-0288063

December 20, 1991.


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION


The defendant filed a motion to join as a party defendant Barbara Gaetano who settled with the plaintiff prior to this suit being brought. The defendant claims it is necessary to have Gaetano as a party defendant in order to determine the percentage of negligence attributable to her in this accident. The plaintiff objects and claims that there is no need to cite in persons who have settled in order for the trier of fact to determine the proportionate share of liability. The court finds that the plaintiff's position to be the correct one.

52-572h (f) of our general statutes requires the trier to consider the defendant's negligence along with the negligence of settled or released persons. This section does not mandate that settled or released persons be named as party defendants.

The trier of fact can make such a determination without the necessity of settled or released parties, as party defendants. See Dzwil v. Maine Coast Brewing Co., 4 Conn. Rptr No. 11, 357 (July 1991)

The objection to motion to amend is sustained.

W. JOSEPH McGRATH, JUDGE.


Summaries of

Quinones v. Ruemmele

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport
Dec 20, 1991
1991 Ct. Sup. 10208 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1991)
Case details for

Quinones v. Ruemmele

Case Details

Full title:EDWIN QUINONES v. CARLOS RUEMMELE

Court:Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport

Date published: Dec 20, 1991

Citations

1991 Ct. Sup. 10208 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1991)
7 CSCR 139

Citing Cases

BROWN v. ILL

On November 11, 1992, Carhart moved for summary judgment (#127) as to the cross-claim on the grounds that she…