· 11/15/2021

Larmel v. Metro North Commuter Railroad Co.

Citations

  • 341 Conn. 332

Syllabus

Pursuant to the accidental failure of suit statute (§ 52-592 (a)), ''[i]f any action, commenced within the time limited by law, has failed one or more times to be tried on its merits because . . . the action has been otherwise avoided or defeated . . . for any matter of form . . . the plaintiff . . . may commence a new action . . . for the same cause at any time within one year after the determination of the original action . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute ((Rev. to 2017) § 52-549z), unless a demand for a trial de novo is filed with the court within twenty days after an arbirator's decision in a civil arbitration has been mailed to counsel, that decision shall become a judgment of the court. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injuries that resulted after she slipped and fell while boarding a passenger railcar operated by the defendant. The plaintiff had previously commenced a similar action against the defendant, claiming that her injuries were caused by a wet floor inside of the railcar and that the defendant negligently failed to prevent her fall. Before the commencement of trial in the prior action, 341 Conn. 332 FEBRUARY, 2022 333 Larmel v. Metro North Commuter Railroad Co. the court ordered the parties to submit to civil arbitration pursuant to statute (§ 52-549u). The arbitrator found in favor of the defendant, and notice of the decision was issued. As a result of issues with the mail and staffing issues at the law firm of the plaintiff's counsel, the plaintiff's counsel did not become aware of the arbitration decision until twenty- two days after the decision was mailed. Because neither party demanded a trial de novo within twenty days of the mailing of the arbitrator's decision pursuant to § 52-549z, the trial court rendered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff then commenced the present action pursuant to § 52-592 (a), claiming that her failure to demand a trial de novo in the prior action was due to excusable neglect. The trial

Judges: Robinson; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.