Finkle v. Carroll
134 Conn. App. 278
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Decedent Barbara A. Eckert was killed by her former boyfriend, Tannenbaum, after his release by police following an arrest for disorderly conduct.
- Plaintiff Jennie Finkle, administratrix, filed a 2003 action under §52-555 against Watertown and several officers alleging negligence in charging and releasing Tannenbaum.
- Plaintiff withdrew the 2003 action and refiled on November 20, 2008 against Watertown and Carroll under §52-593 and §52-555.
- Carroll, the ranking police officer, made the final decision to release Tannenbaum; arresting officers Marciano, McDonnell, and Bromley provided information leading to that decision.
- Trial court held the §52-593 savings provision did not apply because the original action did not name the right defendants; plaintiff appealed.
- Appellate Court affirmed, holding the action was not saved by §52-593 and that the original officers were proper defendants for the negligence theory; nevertheless, decision based on alternative reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §52-593 saves the second action as to proper defendants. | Finkle argues savings applies since original action named some, though not all, liable defendants. | Defendants contend §52-593 does not apply because the original action did name proper defendants. | No; the action not saved by §52-593. |
| Whether the original officers were proper defendants under the negligence theory. | Plaintiff contends original officers were not all proper defendants. | Defendants argue original officers were proper defendants for negligence in the charging/releasing process. | Original officers were proper defendants; §52-593 not applicable. |
| Whether naming all potential defendants is required to trigger §52-593’s savings. | Argues that naming some defendants suffices if they are the right persons. | Argues that failure to name the right person defeats savings. | Failure to name all defendants does not defeat savings when the named party is the right person; however, on record, the present case does not satisfy §52-593 as applied. |
| What is the standard of review for summary judgment on limitations defenses? | Plenary review; no genuine issue of material fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iello v. Weiner, 129 Conn.App. 359 (2011) (analysis of right person under §52-593; withdrawal not fatal where right person named)
- Cogan v. Chase Manhattan Auto Financial Corp., 276 Conn. 1 (2005) (savings statute requires right person; failure to name may bar second action)
- Kronberg v. Peacock, 67 Conn.App. 668 (2002) (remedial nature of §52-593; liberal construction but no endless litigation)
- Isidro v. State, 62 Conn.App. 545 (2001) (liberal construction of statutes of limitation; finality policy)
- Whipple v. Fardig, 109 Conn. 460 (1929) (example of determining proper Plaintiff/defendant under agency-type theories)
- DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, 123 Conn.App. 583 (2010) (savings provision applicability when defendant did not exist at injury)
- Morrissey v. Board of Education, 40 Conn.Supp. 266 (1985) (discussion of procedural aspects in savings contexts)