Joyner v. A. Ricciardi and Sons, No. Cv95 0145597 (Dec. 22, 1995)

Connecticut Superior Court

Joyner v. A. Ricciardi and Sons, No. Cv95 0145597 (Dec. 22, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 14436, 16 Conn. L. Rptr. 110

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 22, 1995

DocketNo. CV95 0145597

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 14436 (Joyner v. A. Ricciardi and Sons, No. Cv95 0145597 (Dec. 22, 1995)) 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

Joyner v. A. Ricciardi and Sons, No. Cv95 0145597 (Dec. 22, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 14436, 16 Conn. L. Rptr. 110 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO CITE IN PARTY DEFENDANT (#107) The plaintiff, Theresa Joyner, brought an action on May 18, 1995 against the defendants alleging negligence in an accident between a bus in which the plaintiff was a passenger, and a truck operated by the defendant Leon M. Schofield and owned by the defendant A. Ricciardi Sons, Inc. a/k/a Ricciardi Bros., Inc. The defendants' complaint against "John Doe" alleges that John Doe, an unidentified driver, cut off Schofield and forced him into the bus.

Defendants filed a memorandum in support of their motion. The plaintiffs have not responded.

Pursuant to Practice Book § 52-102, the court must grant a party's motion to add a person as a party "if that person is necessary for a complete determination or settlement of any question involved therein." Practice Book § 52-102. "This provision allowed those individuals named as defendants by the plaintiff to avoid having to pay damages for which they were not responsible." Donner v. Kearse, 234 Conn. 660, 669, (1995).

The defendant cites Gallagher-Crespo v. Storz, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, Docket No. 364073 14 Conn. L. Rptr. 64 (April 7, 1995, Fracasse, J.) for the proposition that the defendant may cite in an unknown party for apportionment purposes. The court inGallagher held that the general rule which prohibits the court from proceeding against unknown persons in the absence of a statute does not apply for apportionment purposes because there can be no judgment for or against that party, and the party need not plead or even attend trial for the party's negligence to be considered.Gallagher-Crespo, supra.

"In part, the legislative policy enacted by Tort Reform II, is to hold parties liable only for their proportionate share of recoverable damages. If the defendant in the present case is not allowed to designate John Doe a `party' solely for apportionment, then the purpose of General Statutes § 52-572h will be frustrated, resulting in the defendant being deprived of the opportunity to have her liability reduced in proportion to the potential liability of another, albeit unknown." Gallagher-Crespo, supra. CT Page 14438

Accordingly, the motion is granted.

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 RE: MOTION TO CITE IN PARTY DEFENDANT (#107) The plaintiff, Theresa Joyner, brought an action on May 18, 1995 against the defendants alleging negligence in an accident between a bus in which the plaintiff was a passenger, and a truck operated by the defendant Leon M. Schofield and owned by the defendant A. Ricciardi Sons, Inc. a/k/a Ricciardi Bros., Inc. The defendants' complaint against "John Doe" alleges that John Doe, an unidentified driver, cut off Schofield and forced him into the bus.

Defendants filed a memorandum in support of their motion. The plaintiffs have not responded.

Pursuant to Practice Book § 52-102, the court must grant a party's motion to add a person as a party "if that person is necessary for a complete determination or settlement of any question involved therein." Practice Book § 52-102. "This provision allowed those individuals named as defendants by the plaintiff to avoid having to pay damages for which they were not responsible." Donner v. Kearse, 234 Conn. 660, 669, (1995).

The defendant cites Gallagher-Crespo v. Storz, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, Docket No. 364073 14 Conn. L. Rptr. 64 (April 7, 1995, Fracasse, J.) for the proposition that the defendant may cite in an unknown party for apportionment purposes. The court inGallagher held that the general rule which prohibits the court from proceeding against unknown persons in the absence of a statute does not apply for apportionment purposes because there can be no judgment for or against that party, and the party need not plead or even attend trial for the party's negligence to be considered.Gallagher-Crespo, supra.

"In part, the legislative policy enacted by Tort Reform II, is to hold parties liable only for their proportionate share of recoverable damages. If the defendant in the present case is not allowed to designate John Doe a `party' solely for apportionment, then the purpose of General Statutes § 52-572h will be frustrated, resulting in the defendant being deprived of the opportunity to have her liability reduced in proportion to the potential liability of another, albeit unknown." Gallagher-Crespo, supra. CT Page 14438

Accordingly, the motion is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 14436, 16 Conn. L. Rptr. 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joyner-v-a-ricciardi-and-sons-no-cv95-0145597-dec-22-1995-connsuperct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack