Harrison v. Servicemaster Industries, No. 29 97 70 (Jan. 18, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

Harrison v. Servicemaster Industries, No. 29 97 70 (Jan. 18, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 758

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 18, 1991

DocketNo. 29 97 70

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 758 (Harrison v. Servicemaster Industries, No. 29 97 70 (Jan. 18, 1991)) 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

Harrison v. Servicemaster Industries, No. 29 97 70 (Jan. 18, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 758 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON THE DEFENDANT KENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE CROSS-COMPLAINT OF SERVICEMASTER (No. 127) The defendant Servicemaster moves to strike the cross-complaint filed by the defendant Kent Company for indemnification on the grounds that indemnification between co-defendants has been abrogated under the Products Liability Act. Kyrtatas v. Stop Shop, Inc., 205 Conn. 694, 702 (1988). Notwithstanding the allegations in the complaint that the plaintiff Clifton Harrison brought the action as a product liability claim, he also makes CT Page 759 claim of negligent repairs and inspection of repairs which may be (depending upon the facts) outside the scope of the Products Liability Act. Zichichi v. Middlesex Memorial Hospital, 204 Conn. 399,403 (1987) ("Once a particular transaction is labeled a `service' as opposed to a `sale' of a `product,' it is outside the purview of our product liability statute.")

Accordingly, the motion to strike the cross-complaint is denied without prejudice and the issue should be decided by the trial judge.

ROBERT I. BERDON, JUDGE

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 THE DEFENDANT KENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE CROSS-COMPLAINT OF SERVICEMASTER (No. 127) The defendant Servicemaster moves to strike the cross-complaint filed by the defendant Kent Company for indemnification on the grounds that indemnification between co-defendants has been abrogated under the Products Liability Act. Kyrtatas v. Stop Shop, Inc., 205 Conn. 694, 702 (1988). Notwithstanding the allegations in the complaint that the plaintiff Clifton Harrison brought the action as a product liability claim, he also makes CT Page 759 claim of negligent repairs and inspection of repairs which may be (depending upon the facts) outside the scope of the Products Liability Act. Zichichi v. Middlesex Memorial Hospital, 204 Conn. 399,403 (1987) ("Once a particular transaction is labeled a `service' as opposed to a `sale' of a `product,' it is outside the purview of our product liability statute.")

Accordingly, the motion to strike the cross-complaint is denied without prejudice and the issue should be decided by the trial judge.

ROBERT I. BERDON, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-servicemaster-industries-no-29-97-70-jan-18-1991-connsuperct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack