Opinion
No. CV 06-5004320 S
May 7, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE (Motion #126.00)
On March 12, 2007, the plaintiff, Gwendolyn Jackson-Colson, filed a motion to strike the third, fourth, fifth and sixth special defenses of the defendant, Bridgeport Housing Authority. The parties have agreed to allow the third special defense to be stricken.
As to the fourth special defense, the plaintiff argues that, for the defendant to avail itself of the provisions of General Statutes § 13a-149 in its special defenses, the defendant must allege facts that invoke that statute. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that the defendant must allege that it is a municipality. As to the fifth special defense, claiming indemnification pursuant to General Statutes § 7-465, the plaintiff again argues that the defendant is required to allege that it is a municipality in order to invoke that statute. As to the sixth special defense, claiming governmental immunity pursuant to General Statutes § 52-557n, the plaintiff argues that the defendant is required to allege that it is a municipality in order to make the claim that § 52-557n applies and that, even had the defendant made such an allegation in its special defenses, § 52-557n does not provide governmental immunity to the Bridgeport Housing Authority.
The defendant argues that it does not need to allege that it is a municipality in order to invoke the protections of these statutes. It maintains that its special defenses properly invoke these statutes as written.
General Statutes § 13a-149 provides that no action for an injury sustained by means of a defective road or bridge may be maintained against "any town, city, corporation or borough . . ." General Statutes § 7-465 requires any town, city or borough to indemnify its employees under certain circumstances. Similarly, General Statutes § 52-557n(a)(2) provides in relevant part that "a political subdivision of the state shall not be liable for damages to a person or property" caused by its employees, officers, or agents.
These statutes are clearly limited in scope in that they are applicable only to the types of parties enumerated within them. As the defendant has not pleaded that it is such a party, it has not invoked these statutes. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to strike the fourth, fifth and sixth special defenses is granted.