From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wasko v. Manella

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport
Aug 9, 1994
1994 Ct. Sup. 8029 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1994)

Opinion

No. CV93 30 81 52 S

August 9, 1994


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 shall be 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


Summaries of

Wasko v. Manella

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport
Aug 9, 1994
1994 Ct. Sup. 8029 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1994)
Case details for

Wasko v. Manella

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN WASKO, ET AL vs. JAMES MANELLA

Court:Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport

Date published: Aug 9, 1994

Citations

1994 Ct. Sup. 8029 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1994)