Priore v. Longo-McLean, 143 Conn. App. 249

Plaintiffs Priore sue for damages from a January 20, 2008 car crash involving Tyler Priore and George Lucas McLean; town and employees not named in underlying action.
Defendants file two apportionment complaints seeking liability shares against the town and six town employees for negligent road construction and maintenance.
Trial court granted summary judgment: apportionment claims fall under the municipal highway defect statute § 13a-149, prohibiting apportionment.
Appellants argue complaints are not highway defect claims and that apportionment could be allowed; they dispute the sole proximate cause doctrine.
Appellate court reviews under summary judgment standard and holds § 13a-149 is the exclusive remedy, precluding apportionment.
Court ultimately affirms the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment to apportionment defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do apportionment complaints fall under § 13a-149 highway defect claims?	Priore contends not highway defect claims.	McLean contends complaints invoke highway defect law.	Yes; complaints invoke § 13a-149.
Is apportionment permissible under § 13a-149 if applicable?	Priore argues apportionment could be allowed.	McLean argues apportionment barred by sole proximate cause.	No; exclusive remedy bars apportionment.

Ferreira v. Pringle, 255 Conn. 330 (Conn. 2001) (highway defect statute exclusive remedy for municipal injuries)
Bartram v. Sharon, 71 Conn. 686 (Conn. 1899) (sole proximate cause doctrine for municipal liability)
Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners, 219 Conn. 179 (Conn. 1991) (defect must be sole proximate cause)
Smith v. New Haven, 258 Conn. 56 (Conn. 2001) (defective highway liability; sole proximate cause framework)
Wenc v. New London, 235 Conn. 408 (Conn. 1995) (exclusive remedy under § 52-557n and § 13a-149)
Bradley v. Randall, 45 Conn. App. 924 (Conn. App. 1997) (apportionment not available under highway defect theory)