Wasko v. Manella, No. Cv93 30 81 52 S (Aug. 9, 1994)

Connecticut Superior Court

Wasko v. Manella, No. Cv93 30 81 52 S (Aug. 9, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8029

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedAugust 9, 1994

DocketNo. CV93 30 81 52 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8029 (Wasko v. Manella, No. Cv93 30 81 52 S (Aug. 9, 1994)) 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

Wasko v. Manella, No. Cv93 30 81 52 S (Aug. 9, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8029 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff moves to strike the defendant's counterclaim for indemnification and apportionment of liability. The defendant fails to state a legally sufficient claim for indemnification, because he fails to allege the existence of an independent legal relationship between himself and the plaintiff. Atkinson v.Berloni, 23 Conn. App. 325, 328, 580 A.2d 432 (1989).

The defendant also fails to state a legally sufficient claim for apportionment of liability against the plaintiff. General Statutes § 52-572h(c) provides in part that "if the damages are determined to be proximately caused by the negligence of more than one party, each party against whom recovery is allowed shallbe liable to the claimant only for his proportionate share . . . ." Based upon the language of the statute, liability is apportioned only among defendants. It is unnecessary for a defendant to file a counterclaim for apportionment of liability against a plaintiff See Green v. Mancusi, 9 CSCR 117 (February 7, 1994, karazin [Karazin], J.); Bueno v. Duva, 7 CSCR 919 (July 9, 1992, Fuller, J.).

Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's counterclaim is granted.

FORD, JUDGE CT Page 8030

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff moves to strike the defendant's counterclaim for indemnification and apportionment of liability. The defendant fails to state a legally sufficient claim for indemnification, because he fails to allege the existence of an independent legal relationship between himself and the plaintiff. Atkinson v.Berloni, 23 Conn. App. 325, 328, 580 A.2d 432 (1989).

The defendant also fails to state a legally sufficient claim for apportionment of liability against the plaintiff. General Statutes § 52-572h(c) provides in part that "if the damages are determined to be proximately caused by the negligence of more than one party, each party against whom recovery is allowed shallbe liable to the claimant only for his proportionate share . . . ." Based upon the language of the statute, liability is apportioned only among defendants. It is unnecessary for a defendant to file a counterclaim for apportionment of liability against a plaintiff See Green v. Mancusi, 9 CSCR 117 (February 7, 1994, karazin [Karazin], J.); Bueno v. Duva, 7 CSCR 919 (July 9, 1992, Fuller, J.).

Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's counterclaim is granted.

FORD, JUDGE CT Page 8030

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wasko-v-manella-no-cv93-30-81-52-s-aug-9-1994-connsuperct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack