Dean Proto v. Camrac, Inc. et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

In this motor vehicle accident case, the plaintiff, Dean Proto, has brought one of his claims of negligence against the defendant, Nissan Motors Acceptance Corporation, on the basis of an allegedly defective seatbelt and air bag safety system.   The defendant has moved for summary judgment on the grounds that such claims can only be brought under the Connecticut Products Liability Act (CPLA), General Statutes § 52-572m et seq., and that the defendant is not engaged in selling motor vehicles.   The plaintiff has admitted that the defendant is not a product seller but argues that he has brought suit for a claim of “negligent financing.”

DISCUSSION

“Practice Book § 17-49 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Provencher v. Enfield, 284 Conn. 772, 790-91, 936 A.2d 625 (2007).  “[T]he genuine issue aspect of summary judgment requires the parties to bring forward before trial evidentiary facts, or substantial evidence outside the pleadings, from which the material facts alleged in the pleadings can warrantably be inferred ․ A material fact has been defined adequately and simply as a fact which will make a difference in the result of the case.”   (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Buell Industries, Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co., 259 Conn. 527, 556, 791 A.2d 489 (2002).

“In seeking summary judgment, it is the movant who has the burden of showing the nonexistence of any issue of fact ․ Once the moving party has met its burden ․ the opposing party must present evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed factual issue ․ It is not enough ․ for the opposing party merely to assert the existence of such a disputed issue.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Zielinski v. Kotsoris, 279 Conn. 312, 318-19, 901 A.2d 1207 (2006).  “In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is not to decide issues of material fact, but rather to determine whether any such issues exist.”  Nolan v. Borkowski, 206 Conn. 495, 500, 538 A.2d 1031 (1988).   Moreover, the “court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Provencher v. Enfield, supra, 284 Conn. 791.

The plaintiff has admitted that the defendant is not a product seller under General Statutes § 52-572m.   The plaintiff's complaint clearly sounds in products liability rather than his new and novel claim of “negligent financing.”   Therefore, he can bring suit only under the CPLA. See Daily v. New Britain Machine Co., 200 Conn. 562, 571-72, 512 A.2d 893 (1986).   Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.

BY THE COURT

Jack W. Fischer, Judge

Fischer, Jack W., J.