2012 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 52 - Civil Actions
Chapter 926 - Statute of Limitations
Section 52-577 - Action founded upon a tort.

No action founded upon a tort shall be brought but within three years from the date of the act or omission complained of.

(1949 Rev., S. 8316.)

See Sec. 52-555 re actions for injuries resulting in death.

See Sec. 52-584 re limitation of action for injury to person or property caused by negligence, misconduct or malpractice.

Annotations to former statute limiting action for trespass or slander: In trespass for mesne profits, they will not be awarded for over 3 years. 2 R. 440. Action of trespass is not the appropriate one to recover for a fire communicated by a railway locomotive. 56 C. 24. In case of continuing trespass, recovery may be had for damages accruing for 3 years next preceding the action. 76 C. 316. History of section. 82 C. 581. Section applies where cause of action is founded on absolute liability from ultrahazardous activity of blasting. 137 C. 577. Cited. 139 C. 222; 142 C. 452. Such defense must be pleaded. 143 C. 31. The date of the act or omission complained of is the date when the negligent conduct of defendant occurs and is not the date when plaintiff first sustains damages. 144 C. 170.

Cited. 1 CA 123; Id., 550; Id., 652; 2 CA 322; 5 CA 473. “The nature of the right sued upon and not the form of action nor the relief demanded determines the applicability of the statute of limitations.” 6 CA 187. Cited. 15 CA 458; Id., 677; 18 CA 525; 25 CA 360; 31 CA 235; Id., 750; 32 CA 384; Id., 786; 33 CA 422; Id., 842; Id., 702; 35 CA 31; 39 CA 183. Statute as applied to plaintiff not unconstitutional. Id., 289. Cited. 40 CA 449; 42 CA 712; 45 CA 554; 46 CA 199. In the case of special relation between attorney and client who were family, malpractice in deeds and escrow acts not barred by 3-year limitation since continuing course of conduct and special relationship. 65 CA 813. Court properly concluded that tolling claim was not barred by the collateral estoppel doctrine where defendant was neither a party nor in privity with a party to the earlier cause of action. 69 CA 151. Continuing course of conduct and continuous representation doctrines may apply in a legal malpractice action to toll the statute of limitations. Id. Applicable to claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 78 CA 865. Does not apply to case where defendant negligently misidentified plaintiff’s property as belonging to another, but rather such case concerns negligent injury to property and therefore statute of limitations in Sec. 52-584 applies. 79 CA 290. Pendency of a first action did not toll statute of limitations for a second action arising from the same wrong. 83 CA 442. Limitation period begins with date of the act or omission complained of, not date when plaintiff first discovers the injury. 85 CA 145. If a legal malpractice case is not ripe for adjudication until damage caused by the alleged malpractice becomes evident upon final judgment in the underlying action, the statute is tolled until such final judgment is rendered. 89 CA 690. Section applies to, and bars, defendant’s fraudulent conveyance counterclaim since claim was filed more than three years after date of the property transfer; section is an occurrence statute, meaning that the time period within which plaintiff must commence an action begins to run at moment the act or omission complained of occurs, not date when plaintiff first discovers the injury. 95 CA 436. Each distinct cause of action arising from the same wrong is governed by the statute of limitations appropriate to it and therefore plaintiff’s second and third counts, which alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy, respectively, and are unquestionably tort actions, are governed by section. Id., 454. In a matter involving plaintiff investor who alleged a breach of fiduciary duty by defendant investment professionals, trial court properly refused to extend the continuous representation doctrine to all fiduciary relationships. 112 CA 441. For malicious prosecution claim, 3-year limitation period starts to toll from date criminal matter is dismissed, not date of arrest. 113 CA 131. For continuing course of conduct doctrine to apply to toll statute of limitations, a duty must have existed at time of original wrong and trial court improperly applied doctrine in context of an alleged duty arising simply because of the existence of a relationship between the parents of minor children. 115 CA 404; judgment reversed, see 301 C. 575. The 3-year period begins on date the act or omission complained of occurs, not date the cause of action accrues or date the injury occurs. 117 CA 129. Legal malpractice claim which sounds in tort is governed by the 3-year statute of limitations. 134 CA 785.

Cited. 4 CS 222; Id., 293; 8 CS 302. Application of statute of limitations is that of the forum and not where the cause of action arose. 12 CS 477. Sec. 22-357, making the owner or keeper of a dog liable for any damage to person or property done by the dog, is controlled by a 3-year statute of limitations for an action founded upon a tort. 14 CS 428; 26 CS 294, 296. Action for inducing entry into a mental institution by fraud falls within 3-year statute of limitations. 15 CS 434. Where action charges breach of contract for failure to procure insurance coverage against damage to plaintiff’s property, cause of action is in tort but is not one for injury to property under Sec. 52-584. 17 CS 62. Cited. 17 CS 114; Id., 407; 18 CS 225; Id., 310. Cause of action based on nuisance when not arising from negligence based on 3-year statute of limitations. 20 CS 35. Cited. 22 CS 300. Controlling statute of limitations for parents sued under Sec. 52-572. 24 CS 320. Impleading under Sec. 52-102a barred by statute of limitations. 27 CS 46. Claim against manufacturer for injuries caused by defective skates held tort liability, not breach of implied warranty under Sec. 42a-2-725 of Uniform Commercial Code, and therefore barred by statute of limitations. Id. Statute of limitations for tort actions applies to personal injury action based on breach of warranty. 28 CS 160. Action for tort limited to 3-year statute of limitations. 29 CS 71. Cited. Id., 72. Mental incompetence does not toll the time limitation, but imprisonment may. 31 CS 46. Cited. 34 CS 22; Id., 643, 646. 3-year statute of limitations for tort actions applies to fraud or deception action. 36 CS 277. Cited. Id., 357; 39 CS 458; 44 CS 207; Id., 477; Id., 527. Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege fraudulent concealment to toll the statute; defendant’s assertion of statute of limitations in motion to strike rather than as a special defense was acceptable in this case. 46 CS 386. Plaintiff failed to allege intent to conceal as is required to toll the statute. Id. Statutes of repose allow defendants at some point to be free from liability, absent unclean or fraudulent conduct, and logical conclusion is that legislature intended state to abide by statutes of repose. 51 CS 265.

Cause of action brought under Sec. 52-572 is governed by 3-year limitation imposed by this section. 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 379.