Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** BRUCE ALLARD v. LIBERTY OIL EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. (SC 16154)
Borden, Norcott, Katz, Sullivan and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued May 30--officially released July 25, 2000 Counsel

John B. Farley, with whom, on the brief, were James V. Somers, Michael S. Taylor and Jodie R. Small, for the appellant (defendant). Michael Brodinsky, for the appellee (third party defendant).
Opinion

BORDEN, J. The sole issue in this appeal is whether a defendant sued in negligence may apportion liability to a product seller against whom the defendant alleges, in its apportionment complaint, only a theory of negligence. The defendant, Liberty Oil Equipment Company, Inc. (Liberty Oil),1 appeals2 from the judgment of the trial court striking its apportionment complaint against the third party defendant, Boston Steel and Manufacturing Co. (Boston Steel). Liberty Oil claims that the trial court improperly struck its apportionment complaint

because, although Boston Steel was alleged to be a product seller with respect to the particular item in question in the case, Liberty Oil confined its apportionment allegations against Boston Steel to claims of negligence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff, Bruce Allard, brought the action underlying this case against Liberty Oil in negligence. Liberty Oil filed a substitute apportionment complaint against Boston Steel. The trial court granted Boston Steel's motion to strike the substitute apportionment complaint, and rendered judgment accordingly. The procedural history is undisputed. In June, 1996, Allard brought the underlying action in this case. In his original complaint, Allard alleged that, on February 27, 1995, while employed by Viking Oil, Inc.,3 he brought his oil truck to Liberty Oil for servicing and, while in Liberty Oil's service area, he was descending certain steps of a ladder on his truck when he fell, landing on a wooden hand truck, causing him to suffer severe injuries. Allard alleged that Liberty Oil was negligent in failing to maintain its service area in a safe condition, in failing to prohibit customers from entering the service area, and in failing to take reasonable measures to prevent customers from entering the dangerous service area. Liberty Oil filed its first apportionment complaint against Boston Steel alleging that a portion of its liability to Allard, if any, should be apportioned to Boston Steel because the oil truck or a portion of the oil truck from which Allard allegedly had fallen was ``designed, installed, manufactured, distributed, or sold by'' Boston Steel, and was defective and unreasonably dangerous. The trial court, Lavine, J., granted Boston Steel's motion to strike this first apportionment complaint. Liberty Oil then filed a substitute apportionment complaint (apportionment complaint), which is the focus of this appeal. In the apportionment complaint, Liberty Oil alleged that the portion of the oil truck from which Allard allegedly had fallen, including the tank and ladder, was ``designed, manufactured, installed, distributed, or sold by'' Boston Steel. Liberty Oil also alleged that Allard had alleged that his injuries were the result of Liberty Oil's negligence, and that, if Allard had suffered any injuries, ``then said injuries and damages were proximately caused by the negligence and carelessness of Boston Steel . . . .''4 Accordingly, Liberty Oil sought ``an apportionment of liability against Boston Steel for the percentage of its liability causing the plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages.'' Boston Steel moved to strike the apportionment complaint on the ground that, despite the allegations of negligence, the apportionment complaint ``alleges a products liability claim, not a negligence claim.'' The trial court, Lavine, J., granted the motion to strike. Subsequently, the trial court, Maloney, J., granted Liberty Oil's motion for judgment on the

apportionment complaint.5 This appeal followed. Liberty Oil claims that the trial court improperly struck its apportionment complaint. Liberty Oil's argument is simple and straightforward: it has been sued in negligence; General Statutes

Download Allard v. Liberty Oil Equipment Co..pdf

Connecticut Law