Kevin Robertson v. Norwalk Powdered Metals, Inc. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE OBJECTION TO REQUEST TO AMEND COMPLAINT (NO. 112.00)

The plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover damages from the defendant that the plaintiff claims were the result of the defendant's negligence.   In his original complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he had been assigned by a temporary staffing agency to perform services as a machine operator at the defendant's facility.   He further alleged that, on September 7, 2007, while he was performing these services, an employee of the defendant gave him certain instructions concerning the operation of a stamping machine.   This was to allow the plaintiff to inspect a stamped part within the machine.¹  The plaintiff alleged that he did this, and placed his hand within the machine.   He claims that the machine then suddenly engaged, and he suffered injuries to his hand.   The plaintiff alleged that these injuries were sustained as the result of the defendant's negligence.

On October 18, 2010 the plaintiff filed a request to amend the complaint with the proposed amendment.   The defendant has objected to the amended complaint to the extent that the plaintiff now alleges 1) it was one of the defendant's own employees who “rigged” the machine in a manner allowing the plaintiff to put his hand inside it (paragraph four); ²  2) the defendant negligently failed to warn the plaintiff that this created an unsafe condition (paragraph seven A), and;  3) the defendant, through its employee in rigging the machine, negligently caused an unsafe method of operating the machine which endangered the plaintiff (paragraph seven C).  The defendant maintains that these allegations constitute a new cause of action, do not relate back to the original complaint and, inasmuch as more than two years have passed since the plaintiff's cause of action accrued, are barred by General Statutes § 52-584.

In Wright v. Teamsters Local 599, 123 Conn.App. 1, 1 A.3d 207 (2010), the Appellate Court stated that:

A cause of action is that single group of facts which is claimed to have brought about an unlawful injury to the plaintiff and which entitles the plaintiff to relief ․ A right of action at law arises from the existence of a primary right in the plaintiff, and an invasion of that right by some delict on the part of the defendant.   The facts which establish the existence of that right and that delict constitute the cause of action ․ A change in, or an addition to, a ground of negligence or an act of negligence arising out of the single group of facts which was originally claimed to have brought about the unlawful injury to the plaintiff does not change the cause of action ․ It is proper to amplify or expand what has already been alleged in support of a cause of action, provided the identity of the cause of action remains substantially the same, but where an entirely new and different factual situation is presented, a new and different cause of action is stated ․ Our relation back doctrine provides that an amendment relates back when the original complaint has given the party fair notice that a claim is being asserted stemming from a particular transaction or occurrence, thereby serving the objectives of our statute of limitations, namely, to protect parties from having to defend against stale claims ․ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Alswanger v. Smego, 257 Conn. 58, 64-65, 776 A.2d 444 (2001).  Wright v. Teamsters Local 599, 123 Conn.App. 6-7.

In applying these principles here, the court finds that the allegations concerning the failure to warn do not constitute a new cause of action.   The original complaint alleged, in part, that the defendant was negligent in failing to instruct the plaintiff in the safe operation of the machine.   It also alleged negligence in properly training and supervising its employees.   The allegations in the amended complaint amplify upon what was previously alleged, and “the identity of the cause of action remains substantially the same ․” Gurliacci v. Mayer, 218 Conn. 531, 547, 590 A.2d 914 (1991).

Likewise, the court does not find that the allegations concerning one of the defendant's employees rigging the machine and thereby causing an unsafe method of operation to be a new cause of action.   There is an adequate relationship between the original and amended allegations;  New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, 291 Conn. 433, 484, 970 A.2d 592 (2009);  inasmuch as they relate to the very same part of the plaintiff's claim.   Both complaints are constant in the claim that the machine was altered.   Whether “Joseph” may have instructed the plaintiff how to rig the machine or “Joseph” may have done so personally are not so different as to be outside the bounds of fair notice to the defendant.   See, Franc v. Bethel Holding Co., 73 Conn.App. 114, 136, 807 A.2d 519 (2002), cert. granted on other grounds, 262 Conn. 923, 812 A.2d 864 (2002), appeal withdrawn (2003).

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's objection to the plaintiff's request to amend the complaint is overruled.

KAVANEWSKY, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. More specifically, the plaintiff alleged that an employee of the defendant instructed him “to press a box against the side of the machine ․” (Complaint, paragraph four.).  FN1. More specifically, the plaintiff alleged that an employee of the defendant instructed him “to press a box against the side of the machine ․” (Complaint, paragraph four.)

FN2. In paragraph four of the amended complaint the plaintiff alleges that “․ an employee of [the] defendant named Joseph placed and/or pressed a box and/or pans against the side of the left operation button of machine # 105 to allow it to be operated when only the right button was pushed by the operator, who at that time was the plaintiff.”.  FN2. In paragraph four of the amended complaint the plaintiff alleges that “․ an employee of [the] defendant named Joseph placed and/or pressed a box and/or pans against the side of the left operation button of machine # 105 to allow it to be operated when only the right button was pushed by the operator, who at that time was the plaintiff.”

Kavanewsky, John F., J.