Connecticut House Bill HB06072

Connecticut 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/25/11
• Refer: 1/25/11

Caption

An Act Tolling The Time Limit For Filing An Action Regarding A Defective Highway, Bridge, Sidewalk, Road Or Railing Pending The Completion Of A Police Investigation Report.

Impact

The proposed amendments to sections 13a-144, 13a-149, and 13a-152 of the general statutes will potentially have significant implications for individuals injured due to defects in public infrastructure. By extending the time frame for filing claims, the bill facilitates a more thorough investigation into accidents, which could lead to better-informed claims. Additionally, it accounts for situations where victims may not be able to file claims timely due to death or cognitive impairment, thus allowing their conservators or estate representatives a longer period to act. This could provide greater equity in addressing the needs of those who have suffered injuries in public spaces.

Summary

House Bill 06072, proposed by Representative Klarides, seeks to amend existing statutes regarding personal injury claims related to defective public roadways, bridges, sidewalks, and similar infrastructure. The bill specifically tolls the time limit for filing an action by extending it from 90 days after an injury to 180 days, contingent upon the completion of a police investigation report of the incident. This legislative change aims to provide injured parties with a fair opportunity to assess their situation and compile necessary evidence before pursuing legal action, especially when dealing with complex circumstances surrounding liability and negligence on the part of public entities.

Contention

While the intent behind HB 06072 is to improve access to justice for injured individuals, there may be contention regarding the extended time limits which some may argue could complicate liability determinations for municipalities and other entities. Critics might assert that the increased timeline could burden the legal process or lead to prolonged uncertainty for public agencies. Conversely, supporters may argue that these changes are necessary to ensure that injured individuals have the chance to adequately prepare their cases, promoting fairness in legal proceedings related to public safety and infrastructure.