Rivera v. Connecticut Light Power Co., No. 341570 (Nov. 14, 1997)

Connecticut Superior Court

Rivera v. Connecticut Light Power Co., No. 341570 (Nov. 14, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 11934

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 14, 1997

DocketNo. 341570

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 11934 (Rivera v. Connecticut Light Power Co., No. 341570 (Nov. 14, 1997)) 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

Rivera v. Connecticut Light Power Co., No. 341570 (Nov. 14, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 11934 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION With respect to the third special defense, the court cannot determine as a matter of law from the complaint and the special defense that the plaintiff's claim is not time-barred by General Statutes § 52-584, specifically that there was a continuing course of conduct as the plaintiff claims. "When a single special defense is subjected to a motion to strike, only the facts alleged by that special defense are accepted as true." Alpha Crane Service, Inc. v. Capitol Crane Co., 6 Conn. App. 60, 77,504 A.2d 1376, cert. denied, 199 Conn. 807, 508 A.2d 769 (1986).

The fourth special defense, claiming an "act of God", is analogous to, if not the functional equivalent of, unavoidable accident. A charge of unavoidable accident is jurisprudentially in extremis and has been repeatedly discountenanced by our appellate courts in each of the last three decades. See Tomczuk v. Alvarez, 184 Conn. 182, 190-191, 439 A.2d 935 (1981); Dinda v. Sirois, 166 Conn. 68, 72-73, 347 A.2d 75 (1974); Barrese v. DeFillippo, 45 Conn. App. 102, 108-109, ___ A.2d ___ (1997); Griffin v. Muzio, 10 Conn. App. 90, 92, 521 A.2d 607 (1987).

The plaintiff's motion to strike the third special defense is denied. The plaintiff's motion to strike the fourth special defense is granted.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. Levin, Judge of the 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION With respect to the third special defense, the court cannot determine as a matter of law from the complaint and the special defense that the plaintiff's claim is not time-barred by General Statutes § 52-584, specifically that there was a continuing course of conduct as the plaintiff claims. "When a single special defense is subjected to a motion to strike, only the facts alleged by that special defense are accepted as true." Alpha Crane Service, Inc. v. Capitol Crane Co., 6 Conn. App. 60, 77,504 A.2d 1376, cert. denied, 199 Conn. 807, 508 A.2d 769 (1986).

The fourth special defense, claiming an "act of God", is analogous to, if not the functional equivalent of, unavoidable accident. A charge of unavoidable accident is jurisprudentially in extremis and has been repeatedly discountenanced by our appellate courts in each of the last three decades. See Tomczuk v. Alvarez, 184 Conn. 182, 190-191, 439 A.2d 935 (1981); Dinda v. Sirois, 166 Conn. 68, 72-73, 347 A.2d 75 (1974); Barrese v. DeFillippo, 45 Conn. App. 102, 108-109, ___ A.2d ___ (1997); Griffin v. Muzio, 10 Conn. App. 90, 92, 521 A.2d 607 (1987).

The plaintiff's motion to strike the third special defense is denied. The plaintiff's motion to strike the fourth special defense is granted.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. Levin, Judge of the Superior Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 11934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-connecticut-light-power-co-no-341570-nov-14-1997-connsuperct-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack