When ruling on requests for revisions, courts may consider whether the pleadings adequately disclose the material facts that constitute the cause of action, or whether the amendment merely restates a theory of negligence. Allegedly, the plaintiff, Carlos Pillco, was working in a dumpster, below a debris chute, to clear the chute of obstruction, when an individual who was working on the 10th floor pushed a 50-pound piece of concrete into the chute, and the concrete fell 90 feet and struck the plaintiff. Pillco sued Turner Construction LLC, which apparently filed a complaint against Pillco's employer, LVI Environmental Service. In November 2012, LVI filed a request to revise the allegation that "LVI was in control of the situation causing injury to Carlos Pillco to the exclusion of Turner" Construction. In an amended complaint, Turner Construction alleged that "LVI was in control of the situation causing injury to Carlos Pillco to the exclusion of Turner in that it failed to follow established trash chute procedures by failing to provide a means to close and secure (lock) access to rubbish removal chutes, and to coordinate their work with that of other trades." LVI filed a motion for a nonsuit, pursuant to Practice Book §17-31, and alleged that the requested amendment was insufficient and merely restated Turner Construction's theory of negligence. Requests for revisions can be filed, to obtain a more complete or particular statement of the allegations. When ruling on requests for revisions, courts may consider whether the pleadings disclose the materials facts that constitute the cause of action. The court found that Turner Construction's amended complaint adequately alleged that LVI possessed exclusive control of the situation and that LVI failed to follow safety procedures. Turner Construction's amended complaint adequately described the situation over which LVI allegedly possessed exclusive control, and the court denied LVI's motion for nonsuit.

VIEW FULL CASE