Angela Vonella v. City of Hartford (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On March 2, 2007, the plaintiff Angela Vonella went to Starbuck's Coffee located on Trumbull Street in the city of Hartford Connecticut.   She was returning to work from her lunch hour, and was accompanied by a coworker.

She purchased four large cups of coffee, some cookies and bagels and headed back to her place of work.   The coffee was in a cardboard carrying tray, the cookies and bagels were in a small shopping bag with a handle.   She also carried her pocketbook.   She carried a large, unopened golf umbrella which she had borrowed from the property manager in her building.   Her coworker carried his own cell phone which he was speaking into while walking ahead of her as they crossed Trumbull Street at its intersection with Asylum Street.   Shortly after stepping from the curb onto the street at the turning of the walk signal, she fell, having stepped into a pothole which was approximately 14 inches in diameter and filled with muddy water.

As a result of said fall the plaintiff suffered injuries to her right foot and knee, incurred medical bills and expenses, lost time from her employment, and underwent pain and suffering.

Ms. Vonella brought suit against city of Hartford pursuant to section 13a-149 of the General Statutes.  “To bring a successful claim under § 13a-149, the plaintiff must prove, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, (1) that the highway was defective as claimed;  (2) that the defendant actually knew of the particular defect or that, in the exercise of its supervision of highways in the city, it should have known of that defect;  (3) that the defendant, having actual or constructive knowledge of this defect, failed to remedy it having had a reasonable time, under all the circumstances, to do so;  and (4) that the defect must have been the sole proximate cause of the injuries and damages claimed, which means that the plaintiff must prove freedom from contributory negligence.”  DeMatteo v. New Haven, 90 Conn.App. 305, 308, 876 A.2d 1246, cert. denied, 275 Conn. 931, 883 A.2d 1242 (2005).   The pothole is a defect in the highway as defined by the statute.   In addition it appears that it has been present for some time.   Its location, at a very busy intersection in the heart of the city, and the affidavit as to the length of time it had been present, provide the basis for the court's finding that the city had constructive notice.   The presence of the pothole on the day in question establish that the defendant had failed to remedy or repair the defect.

Those provisions of the statute having been established, the remaining question is that of “sole proximate cause.”   In that regard, the court takes into consideration that the fall took place in the middle of the day, as opposed to under darkness.   The pothole was an obvious danger.   There was no obstruction to its visibility.   It was approximately 14 inches in diameter.   The plaintiff was carrying a number of items as described above.

The court cannot find under those circumstances that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care.   The defect, while substantial, was not the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff's fall.

Judgment, therefore is entered for the defendant.

Robaina, J.

Robaina, Antonio C., J.