From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Somohano v. Somohano

Appellate Court of Connecticut
Nov 3, 1992
615 A.2d 181 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992)

Opinion

(11085)

The plaintiffs sought to recover for injuries they sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Florida. The action was brought prior to the expiration of the Florida statute of limitations but after the expiration of the Connecticut statute of limitations ( 52-584). The trial court applied 52-584 and rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant. On the plaintiffs appeal to this court, held that the trial court properly applied the Connecticut statute of limitations; statutes of limitations being procedural, the law of the forum applies.

Argued September 25, 1992

Decision released November 3, 1992

Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiffs in a motor vehicle accident that allegedly resulted from the defendant's negligence, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Ansonia-Milford, where the court, Maiocco, J., granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Affirmed.

Kathryn L. Braun, with whom, on the brief, was Laurence V. Parnoff, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Ruth Beardsley, for the appellee (defendant).


This case arises from a Florida motor vehicle accident in which all the parties are Connecticut residents. The two year Connecticut statute of limitations expired before this negligence action was commenced but prior to the expiration of the four year Florida statute of limitations. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the Connecticut statute of limitations applied. The trial court was correct. The established law of this state is that the statute of limitations is procedural and, therefore, the law of the forum applies. Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 212 Conn. 509, 525, 562 A.2d 1100 (1989).

The pertinent portion of General Statutes 62-584 provides: "No action to recover damages for injury to the person . . . caused by negligence . . . shall be brought but within two years from the date when the injury is first sustained . . . ."

The pertinent portion of Florida Statutes 95.11 provides: "Actions other than for recovery of real property shall be commenced as follows: * * * "(3) WITHIN FOUR YEARS. "(a) An action founded on negligence."

The plaintiffs urge us to overturn the established rule. This court will not reexamine or reevaluate Supreme Court precedent. Whether a Supreme Court holding should be reevaluated in subsequent cases and possibly discarded is not for this court to decide. D'Arcy v. Shugrue, 5 Conn. App. 12, 29, 496 A.2d 967, cert. denied, 197 Conn. 817, 500 A.2d 1336 (1985).


Summaries of

Somohano v. Somohano

Appellate Court of Connecticut
Nov 3, 1992
615 A.2d 181 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992)
Case details for

Somohano v. Somohano

Case Details

Full title:GRACE SOMOHANO ET AL. v. BOBBY SOMOHANO

Court:Appellate Court of Connecticut

Date published: Nov 3, 1992

Citations

615 A.2d 181 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992)
615 A.2d 181

Citing Cases

WILK v. STURBRIDGE RESORT

The established law of this state is that the statute of limitations is procedural, and therefore the law of…

Slekis v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.

Under Connecticut law, statutes of limitations are considered procedural and thus Connecticut's own statutes…