Delbuono v. Yankee Equipment Corp., No. Cv 92-0451119s (Apr. 7, 1993)

Connecticut Superior Court

Delbuono v. Yankee Equipment Corp., No. Cv 92-0451119s (Apr. 7, 1993)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 3647, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 519

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 7, 1993

DocketNo. CV 92-0451119S

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 3647 (Delbuono v. Yankee Equipment Corp., No. Cv 92-0451119s (Apr. 7, 1993)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Delbuono v. Yankee Equipment Corp., No. Cv 92-0451119s (Apr. 7, 1993), 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 3647, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 519 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION On or about May 2, 1990, Professional Painting Co. leased a scissor lift from the defendant Yankee Equipment Corp. for the use of its employees or agents at Vinal Technical School, Middletown, Connecticut. The plaintiff Daniel Delbuono asserts in his complaint that he was injured while operating the scissor lift and that such injury was caused by the defendant Yankee Equipment in that the defendant was negligent in the manufacture, design, maintenance and repair of the scissor lift. Based upon this allegedly defective scissor lift, the plaintiff's complaint asserts a claim sounding solely in products liability, General Statutes 52-572m.

Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book 151, et. seq., the defendant Yankee Equipment moves to strike the complaint of the intervening plaintiff, Professional Painting, Inc., on the ground that intervention is precluded in this action because the plaintiff's complaint is based solely on the Products Liability Act.

A "product liability claim includes all claims or actions brought for personal injury, death or property damage caused by the manufacture, construction, design, formula, preparation, assembly, installation, testing, warning, instructions, marketing, packaging or labeling of any product." Rodia v. Tesco Corp., 11 Conn. App. 391, 393 (1987). A product CT Page 3648 liability claim shall include a theory based on negligence. Id. at 393; Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-572m(b). An allegation that a lessor negligently failed to repair or maintain its product prior to leasing it is a product liability claim. Rodia, 11 Conn. App. at 395; Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-572m(b). In order for the Product Liability Act to fulfill its purpose, it is necessary that the statute be read to reach all conduct which affects the safety of a product prior to its entry into the stream of commerce. Rodia, 11 Conn. App. at 396. In view of the foregoing, the injuries to the plaintiff are properly within the Product Liability Act.

"Neither an employer nor . . . the insurer of such employer, shall have any lien upon any judgment received in any products liability claim, or any right of subrogation if the claim against the third party is a product liability claim." Id. at 393, quoting Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-572r(c) (emphasis added). Therefore, 52-572r(c) precludes employers from intervening in an employee's product liability action, notwithstanding the fact that the employer has paid the employee's workers' compensation benefits. See Rodia, 11 Conn. App. 391.

Accordingly, the motion to strike the intervening complaint is granted.

JOHN J. LANGENBACH JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION On or about May 2, 1990, Professional Painting Co. leased a scissor lift from the defendant Yankee Equipment Corp. for the use of its employees or agents at Vinal Technical School, Middletown, Connecticut. The plaintiff Daniel Delbuono asserts in his complaint that he was injured while operating the scissor lift and that such injury was caused by the defendant Yankee Equipment in that the defendant was negligent in the manufacture, design, maintenance and repair of the scissor lift. Based upon this allegedly defective scissor lift, the plaintiff's complaint asserts a claim sounding solely in products liability, General Statutes 52-572m.

Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book 151, et. seq., the defendant Yankee Equipment moves to strike the complaint of the intervening plaintiff, Professional Painting, Inc., on the ground that intervention is precluded in this action because the plaintiff's complaint is based solely on the Products Liability Act.

A "product liability claim includes all claims or actions brought for personal injury, death or property damage caused by the manufacture, construction, design, formula, preparation, assembly, installation, testing, warning, instructions, marketing, packaging or labeling of any product." Rodia v. Tesco Corp., 11 Conn. App. 391, 393 (1987). A product CT Page 3648 liability claim shall include a theory based on negligence. Id. at 393; Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-572m(b). An allegation that a lessor negligently failed to repair or maintain its product prior to leasing it is a product liability claim. Rodia, 11 Conn. App. at 395; Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-572m(b). In order for the Product Liability Act to fulfill its purpose, it is necessary that the statute be read to reach all conduct which affects the safety of a product prior to its entry into the stream of commerce. Rodia, 11 Conn. App. at 396. In view of the foregoing, the injuries to the plaintiff are properly within the Product Liability Act.

"Neither an employer nor . . . the insurer of such employer, shall have any lien upon any judgment received in any products liability claim, or any right of subrogation if the claim against the third party is a product liability claim." Id. at 393, quoting Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-572r(c) (emphasis added). Therefore, 52-572r(c) precludes employers from intervening in an employee's product liability action, notwithstanding the fact that the employer has paid the employee's workers' compensation benefits. See Rodia, 11 Conn. App. 391.

Accordingly, the motion to strike the intervening complaint is granted.

JOHN J. LANGENBACH JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 3647, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delbuono-v-yankee-equipment-corp-no-cv-92-0451119s-apr-7-1993-connsuperct-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack