139 Conn. App. 767
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Two unrelated tortfeasors allegedly caused a motorcyclist's death by exposing him to a downed power line on a public road.
- Quinebaug Valley Emergency Communications sought common-law indemnification from the power company under the active-passive negligence theory.
- The trial court struck Quinebaug's complaint for failing to plead exclusive control by the power company to the exclusion of Quinebaug.
- Underlying suit claimed Quinebaug's failure to notify the power company contributed to the death; Quinebaug argued the power company's failure to deenergize the line was the primary cause.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the third element of exclusive control was sufficiently pled and remanded for further proceedings.
- Court clarifies that exclusive control refers to control over the dangerous condition (the downed line), not merely the conduct of Quinebaug.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Quinebaug adequately pleads exclusive control | Quinebaug alleges power company controlled the dangerous condition to the exclusion of Quinebaug. | The allegations show independent negligence; not exclusive control by power company. | Yes; pleaded exclusive control exists. |
| Whether Quinebaug's passive negligence is pled adequately | Kaplan permits passive negligence even with independent negligent conduct by other party. | Independent negligence cannot be passive if causation is separate and active. | Yes; Quinebaug's conduct can be passive despite independent negligence by power company. |
| Whether the complaint should be upheld on alternative grounds | Second element satisfied; also exclusive control shown. | No alternative grounds stated; needs dismissal. | Reversed for further proceedings on indemnification claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaplan v. Merberg Wrecking Corp., 152 Conn. 405 (1965) (implied indemnity where active negligence primarily responsible for injury)
- Smith v. New Haven, 258 Conn. 56 (2001) (indemnity shifts liability from passive to active tortfeasor)
- Skuzinski v. Bouchard Fuels, Inc., 240 Conn. 694 (1997) (exclusive control over the dangerous condition; case defines 'the situation')
- Hammond v. Waterbury, 219 Conn. 569 (1991) (recognizes Kaplan's narrow exception to no-contribution rule)
- Bristol v. Dickau Bus Co., 63 Conn. App. 770 (2001) (indemnity concept: recipient's liability shifts when active party controls danger)