Grimes v. Housing Authority, 242 Conn. 236 (1997)

Citation: Grimes v. Housing Authority, 242 Conn. 236 (1997)
Parent Document: Grimes v. Housing Authority, 242 Conn. 236 (1997)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 1997-07-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7897210/grimes-v-housing-authority/ ↗

Full Text

1,368 chars

We next consider whether the American Pipe & Construction Co. rule applies to toll the commencement of the two year statute of limitations for the plaintiffs’ *245negligence action from September 3, 1982, to January, 1987, the date the Connelly class was certified.9 That rule, consistent with the functional operation of a statute of limitations, is limited in order to ensure essential fairness to defendants by barring a plaintiff who “has slept on his rights.” Burnett v. New York Central R. Co., 380 U.S. 424, 428, 85 S. Ct. 1050, 13 L. Ed. 2d 941 (1965). The rule is designed to prevent “surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, supra, 414 U.S. 554; Cullen v. Margiotta, 811 F.2d 698, 720 (2d Cir. 1987). Even if a plaintiff has a just claim, it is unjust not to put the defendant on notice within the limitations period. Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 321 U.S. 342, 348-49, 64 S. Ct. 582, 88 L. Ed. 788 (1944). This essential point, that the defendant be put on notice, is generally fulfilled where a prior class action alerts a defendant to preserve evidence that would be helpful in defending against a subsequent individual claim.

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text