Department of Transportation v. Canevari
Department of Transportation, State of Connecticut v. John M. Canevari Et Al.
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff Connecticut Department of Transportation (hereinafter DOT) brought suit to recover damages which resulted when a motor vehicle operated by the defendant Canevari collided with a pole owned by the plaintiff. To their answer, the defendants appended a special defense that the statute of limitations contained in General Statutes § 52-584 barred the plaintiffs negligence action. The plaintiff moved to strike the special defense, claiming that the two-year statute of limitations is not applicable against a sovereign. Reasoning that sovereign immunity protected the DOT, as an agent of the state, from any bar imposed by the limitations statute, the trial court granted the plaintiffs motion to strike. Thereafter, the court rendered a stipulated judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $1169.21.
1
The defendants have appealed from this judgment contending that the trial court erred in concluding that the statute of limitations does not apply to bar an agent of the state from filing an action after the specified statutory period for bringing suit has expired. The Connecticut Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that, as respects public rights, “a subdivision of the state, acting within its delegated governmental capacity, is not impliedly bound by the ordinary statute of limitations.”
State v. Goldfarb, 160 Conn. 320, 326 , 278 A.2d 818 (1971);
New Haven v. Torrington, 132 Conn. 194, 204 , 43 A.2d 455 (1945);
*901 Bridgeport v. Schwarz Bros. Co., 131 Conn. 50, 54 , 37 A.2d 693 (1944). Accordingly, we sustain the action of the court below.
There is no error.
Daly, Covello and F. Hennessy, Js., participated in this decision.
1
The stipulation for judgment provided “that judgment may be entered for the plaintiff in the amount of One Thousand One Hundred and Sixty-Nine Dollars and Twenty-One Cents ($1169.21). It is further agreed that the action was commenced more than two years from the date of the incident complained of. The plaintiffs rights under its offer of judgment are reserved.”
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(Appellate Session of Superior Court)
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.