Palmer v. Caterpillar Tractor, No. 325988 (Jun. 25, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

Palmer v. Caterpillar Tractor, No. 325988 (Jun. 25, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 5376

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 25, 1991

DocketNo. 325988

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 5376 (Palmer v. Caterpillar Tractor, No. 325988 (Jun. 25, 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

Palmer v. Caterpillar Tractor, No. 325988 (Jun. 25, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 5376 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The common law principles of indemnification have been abrogated by Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-572o (e) in the area of product liability. Kyrtatas v. Stop Shop, Inc., 205 Conn. 694,702 (1988). The court's holding in Kyrtatas is limited to the situation where all potential defendants are parties to the suit. Id. at 702 n. 2. It does not include the situation where a person is made a third party defendant by impleader pursuant to Conn. Practice Book Sec. 117 and Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-102a and 52-577a(b). Id.; see also Malerba v. Cessna Aircraft Co.210 Conn. 189, 198 (1989) (where a claim for indemnification was allowed against an impleaded third party defendant).

It is found that both defendants in the present case are named defendants in the plaintiff's original action brought pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-572m. It is therefore held that Kyrtatas v. Stop Shop, Inc., 205 Conn. 694 (1988) is the CT Page 5377 controlling authority and that the defendant Caterpillar Tractor Company's motion to strike the defendant Robert F. Swift's cross-claim is accordingly granted.

STENGEL, J.

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 The common law principles of indemnification have been abrogated by Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-572o (e) in the area of product liability. Kyrtatas v. Stop Shop, Inc., 205 Conn. 694,702 (1988). The court's holding in Kyrtatas is limited to the situation where all potential defendants are parties to the suit. Id. at 702 n. 2. It does not include the situation where a person is made a third party defendant by impleader pursuant to Conn. Practice Book Sec. 117 and Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-102a and 52-577a(b). Id.; see also Malerba v. Cessna Aircraft Co.210 Conn. 189, 198 (1989) (where a claim for indemnification was allowed against an impleaded third party defendant).

It is found that both defendants in the present case are named defendants in the plaintiff's original action brought pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-572m. It is therefore held that Kyrtatas v. Stop Shop, Inc., 205 Conn. 694 (1988) is the CT Page 5377 controlling authority and that the defendant Caterpillar Tractor Company's motion to strike the defendant Robert F. Swift's cross-claim is accordingly granted.

STENGEL, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 5376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-caterpillar-tractor-no-325988-jun-25-1991-connsuperct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack