Opinion
(12877) (13035)
The plaintiff, suing both as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband and in her own right, sought damages for fatal injuries sustained by her husband in an accident caused by an allegedly defective piece of equipment at his place of employment. The trial court rendered judgments for the defendants alter granting their motions for summary judgment which they had based on the ten year statute of limitations ( 52-577a) applicable to products liability claims, and the plaintiff appealed. Held that the plaintiff's appeals could not succeed, the decedent's injuries having been sustained more than ten years after the manufacturer and vendor of the subject equipment had parted with possession and control of it. Constitutionality of 52-577a, discussed.
Argued March 4, 1987
Decision released April 14, 1987
Action to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff's decedent, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven, where the court, Zoarski, J., granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant Despatch Industries, Inc., and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed; thereafter, the court, McKeever, J., granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant Etter Engineering Company, Inc., and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff filed a separate appeal. No error.
Steven J. Errante, with whom, on the brief, was Cindy L. Robinson, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Jon S. Berk, with whom was Philip J. O'Connor, for the appellee (defendant Despatch Industries, Inc.).
Molly S. Levan, for the appellee (defendant Etter Engineering Company, Inc.).
This case concerns the applicability and the constitutionality of the ten year statute of limitations for product liability claims; General Statutes 52-577a (a); to a suit to recover for personal injuries sustained in an accident that occurred after the expiration of the statute. The plaintiff, Beverly A. Arsenault, suing as administratrix of the estate of David W. Arsenault and in her own right, brought an action in thirteen counts to recover for the fatal injuries that her late husband sustained at his place of employment when an explosion occurred in 1983 as he was placing a tray of springs in an industrial oven. The plaintiff's complaint contained three counts, based upon General Statutes 52-572m through 52-572r, alleging that the defendant Despatch Industries, Inc., the manufacturer of the oven bought in 1959 by the employer of the plaintiff's decedent, was liable to the plaintiff on a theory of negligent failure to warn that the oven was defective. That defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis of the statute of limitations, 52-577a, which it had interposed as a special defense. The trial court Zoarski, J., granted the motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment for the defendant Despatch Industries, Inc. Thereafter, the trial court, McKeever, J., granted a similar motion filed on behalf of Etter Engineering Company, Inc., the distributor who had sold the oven to the employer. The plaintiff has appealed from these judgments.
General Statutes 52-577a (a) provides: "LIMITATION OF ACTION BASED ON PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIM. (a) No product liability claim as defined in section 52-572m shall be brought but within three years from the date when the injury, death or property damage is first sustained or discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered except that, subject to subsections (c) and (d), no such action may be brought against any party nor may any party be impleaded pursuant to subsection (b) later than ten years from the date that the party last parted with possession or control of the product."
These appeals are entirely governed by our recent decision in Daily v. New Britain Machine Co., 200 Conn. 562, 512 A.2d 893 (1986). There, as here, an action was brought to recover for injuries resulting from the use of a machine more than ten years after its vendor had parted with possession and control thereof. There, too, the trial court granted the defendant vendor's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the action was time barred. Concluding that the judgment should be affirmed, we held that 52-577a is a complete defense to such a vendor because "the products liability statute provides an exclusive remedy and the plaintiffs cannot bring a common law cause of action for a claim within the scope of the statute." Id., 571. We also held that 52-577a does not violate the rights established by article first, 10 and 20, of the Connecticut constitution or the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution. Id., 575-86. We specifically considered and rejected the argument, made by the plaintiff in this case, that 52-577a deprives her of the constitutional right to redress "by due course of law" guaranteed by article first, 10, of the Connecticut constitution. Id., 582-86. For these reasons, the plaintiff's appeals cannot succeed.