Wakelee v. DeSanto
| Decision Date | 14 July 1964 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Rorert A. WAKELEE et al. v. William DeSANTO. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
James J. Shea, Waterbury, for the appellant (defendant).
Harry M. Albert, Waterbury, with whom was James R. Lawlor, Waterbury, for the appellee (named plaintiff).
The complaint in this case alleged that on December 19, 1960, the named plaintiff, while working for the town of Wolcott, sustained injuries as a result of the negligent operation of a power shovel by the defendant, who was also comployed by the town, and that at the time in question each was acting in the performance of his duties within the scope of his employment. After the action was commenced, the town joined as a party plaintiff, seekign reimbursement for its obligations under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In this action the plaintiff does not seek to recover damages from the town under § 7-465 of the General Statutes No. 651 of the 1959 Public Acts, which, under certain conditions, imposes indemnification liability on a municipality for injuries caused by an employee. See Martyn v. Donlin, 148 Conn. 27, 32, 166 A.2d 856; Allard v. City of Hartford, 151 Conn. 284, 197 A.2d 69; Martyn v. Donlin, 151 Conn. 402, 198 A.2d 700. Rather, he seeks to pursue a common-law action of negligence.
In addition to his answer to the complaint, the defendant filed a special defense in which he asserted the claim that on December 19, 1960, the date of the alleged injury, § 7-465 as amended provided an exclusive remedy for one claiming damages for injuries caused by the negligence of a municipal employee and that, since the plaintiff had not complied with the requirements of the statute concerning the filing of notice with the town clerk of his injury and of his intention to commence suit, the present action must fail. The court sustained the plaintiff's demurrer to this special defense. After the defendant declined to plead over, the court ordered that the issue raised by the demurrer be severed from all other issues in the case in order that the defendant might pursue his appeal without prejudice to his right to litigate further all other issues in the case.
We have no doubt that the court was correct in ruling that as of the date of his injury the plaintiff was not required to bring an action under the statute as his sole and exclusive remedy. This construction is obvious from the language of the statute as it stood on December 19, 1960. The statute merely required the municipality to pay the damages recovered against its employee in the types of action and under the restrictions enumerated therein. It is reenforced, if any reenforcement is necessary, by the subsequent additions made in the statute by No. 375 of the 1961 Public Acts which are printed in the footnote. 1
The additions consist of two sentences. Both deal with injuries sustained by a municipal employee as a consequence of the negligence of a fellow employee--the situation involved in the present...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fraser v. Henninger
...by the statute, thereby avoiding those requirements which are unique to recovery under the indemnification statute. Wakelee v. DeSanto, 152 Conn. 44, 46, 202 A.2d 833; see annot., 71 A.L.R.3d 90, 98 § 2, 148 § 27(b). The defendants admit that the plaintiff was not required to bring his acti......
-
City of Norwich v. Silverberg
...against the defendant officer himself. See Orticelli v. Powers, 197 Conn. 9, 13-14, 495 A.2d 1023 (1985); see also Wakelee v. DeSanto, 152 Conn. 44, 202 A.2d 833 (1964). The application of § 7-101a to suits brought by municipalities would result in the anomaly of requiring municipalities to......
-
Wheeler v. United States, 82-823.
...recovery under the indemnification statute [§ 7-465]." Fraser v. Henninger, 173 Conn. 52, 56, 376 A.2d 406 (1977); Wakelee v. DeSanto, 152 Conn. 44, 46, 202 A.2d 833 (1964). The word "jointly" was specifically added to the statute "to eliminate any inference that notice need be given to a m......
-
Rowe v. Godou
...unique to recovery under the indemnification statute." Fraser v. Henninger, 173 Conn. 52, 56, 376 A.2d 406 (1977); Wakelee v. DeSanto, 152 Conn. 44, 46, 202 A.2d 833 (1964); see also Norwich v. Silverberg, 200 Conn. 367, 372, 511 A.2d 336 (1986); Bowrys v. Santanella, 39 Conn.Sup. 102, 106,......
-
McConnell v. Beverly Enterprises.
...or supercede the common law, and termed it additional, but not exclusive." Id. (citing Skorpios, 175 Conn. at 156; Wakelee v. Desanto, 152 Conn. 44, 46-47, 202 A.2d 833 The McConnell opinion then became interlaced with an interpretation of the Connecticut legislature's intent as to a citize......