Patterson v. Szabo Food Service of New York, Inc.

Citations: 14 Conn. App. 178; 540 A.2d 99; 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 129Docket: 5587; 5588

Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; April 19, 1988; Connecticut; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Appeals were filed by the plaintiffs from a jury verdict favoring the defendant in a negligence case involving Reed Patterson, an employee of United Technologies, who alleged injuries from slipping on a greasy cafeteria floor operated by the defendant. The incident occurred on October 27, 1980, and the employer sought recovery under the Workers’ Compensation Act. A substitute complaint was filed on May 2, 1986, after the statute of limitations had expired. The defendant claimed that the statute of limitations barred the claims in the substitute complaint. The trial court denied a motion for summary judgment based on this defense, and the jury ultimately ruled for the defendant. 

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding the defendant's negligence and in limiting cross-examination of a witness. However, the defendant presented an alternative argument that the substitute complaint did not assert a new cause of action and was, therefore, not subject to the statute of limitations. The court agreed with the defendant's position, which negated the need to address the plaintiffs’ claims of error. 

Patterson's original complaint alleged negligence based on improper cleaning of the floor, insufficient maintenance staff, violations of safety regulations, and failure to warn about the hazardous condition. The substitute complaint, filed after the statute of limitations, included seven new allegations of negligence, differing significantly from the original four.

The substitute complaint alleges multiple instances of the defendant's negligence related to the maintenance of a highly polished and slippery terrazzo floor and a self-service food dispensary. Key points of negligence include: (1) the installation and maintenance of the slippery floor despite awareness of its hazards, (2) knowledge or constructive knowledge of food spills increasing slipperiness, (3) the creation of a dangerous condition through the cafeteria's self-service model, (4) failure to implement safety measures such as nonskid mats or abrasive treatments, (5) the recurrent nature of food spills that the defendant should have addressed, and (6) the inherent risks associated with a self-service system leading to frequent spills. 

Additionally, the defendant raised a special defense citing the statute of limitations to bar the plaintiffs' claims and subsequently sought summary judgment, which was denied by the trial court. The court reasoned that the amended complaint merely expanded on the original allegations, maintaining the same cause of action. However, it was determined that the substitute complaint presented a new and different factual situation, constituting a new cause of action rather than an amplification of the original. The distinction lies in the facts and circumstances surrounding the claims, which must arise from a single group of facts to avoid the statute of limitations issue.

The original claim against the defendant was for failing to clean the floor and prevent food deposits, while the new claim argues that the defendant installed or maintained a slippery terrazzo floor and used a food distribution method that created a hazardous condition. The trial court should have granted the motion for summary judgment, leading to the affirmation of the judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs’ claims of error are not addressed. Additionally, General Statutes Sec. 52-584 establishes a two-year limitation for actions seeking damages for personal or property injuries due to negligence, with a maximum of three years from the date of the act or omission. A counterclaim can be made before the pleadings are finally closed.