Mario Rosado v. Randy Glowicki et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

A court trial was held in this premises liability action in which the plaintiff is claiming he sustained injuries to his back, wrist and rib from a fall on the front steps of 185 Lawlor Street, New Britain, Connecticut.   He claims to have slipped due to snow and ice that had accumulated on the steps.   The defendants, who admit they were in possession and control of the premises, contend that they exercised reasonable care in inspecting and maintaining the premises making them reasonably safe.   They further contend that any injuries sustained by the plaintiff were caused by his own negligence in failing to exercise reasonable care to avoid the injury.

The proven facts demonstrate that on January 29, 2009, the plaintiff went to the property located at 185 Lawlor Street, New Britain.   The property is a three-family house, owned by the plaintiff's sister, Maria Glowicki, a defendant in this action.   Maria and her husband, the co-defendant, reside on the third floor, while the plaintiff's mother, Gloria Santiago, lives on the first floor.   The plaintiff went to the property to visit his mother, and while carrying a bag of food outside, he slipped and fell on the front steps.

According to the meteorological records, (Defendant's A), the day before the plaintiff's fall, there had been approximately 3.4 inches of snow, along with some freezing rain.   The defendants upon arriving home from work on January 28 had cleared the driveway and walks of the snow with a snow blower and hand shovel.   In addition, they put sand and salt on the walks, driveways, and stairs.   The next morning as they were each individually leaving for work, they examined the walkways, driveway, and steps to insure they were in a reasonably safe condition.

After the plaintiff slipped and fell, he got up, unaided, and drove himself to the hospital.   He experienced pain and soreness in his mid-back and lower back, as well as injuring his wrist.   As a result of the fall, he was diagnosed with a lumbar strain and wrist sprain.   There was no evidence of any spinal fractures or dislocations.   Approximately three weeks after the fall, he began treating with a chiropractor, and after three months had attained maximum improvement and was dismissed from care.   He was given a five percent impairment rating in his lumbar spine and five percent impairment rating in his thoracic spine.   His prognosis is “good.”   Plaintiff's Exh. 1.¹ He has incurred $7,636.05 in medical costs.   He also testified that he still experiences pain in his lumbar area, has difficulty sleeping because of the pain, and is no longer able to perform some activities, such as bicycle riding, playing soccer and basketball.   He continues to work full time as a laborer.

“The essential elements of a cause of action in negligence are well established:  duty;  breach of that duty;  causation;  and actual injury ․ [T]he existence of a duty of care is an essential element of negligence.”   (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Sturm v. Harb Development, LLC, 298 Conn. 124, 139, 2 A.3d 859 (2010).  “In order to assess the duty owed to the plaintiff, it is first necessary to establish the point from which that duty flows.”  LaFlamme v. Dallessio, 261 Conn. 247, 251, 802 A.2d 63 (2002).  “Typically, under traditional premises liability doctrine, [f]or [a] plaintiff to recover for the breach of a duty owed to him as [a business] invitee, it [is] incumbent upon him to allege and prove that the defendant either had actual notice of the presence of the specific unsafe condition which caused [his injury] or constructive notice of it ․ [T]he notice, whether actual or constructive, must be notice of the very defect which occasioned the injury and not merely of conditions naturally productive of that defect even though subsequently in fact producing it ․ In the absence of allegations and proof of any facts that would give rise to an enhanced duty ․ [a] defendant is held to the duty of protecting its business invitees from known, foreseeable dangers.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Fisher v. Big Y Foods, Inc., 298 Conn. 414, 418 n. 9, 3 A.3d 919 (2010).

The court finds that the defendants owed a duty to the plaintiff, as an invitee, and owed a duty of reasonable care to keep the stairs in a safe condition.   The defendants admit they owned and controlled the premises where the plaintiff allegedly fell, and was responsible for the maintenance of that area.   The evidence indicates that the defendants, having notice of the unsafe conditions that arose as a result of the snowfall which occurred on January 28, 2009, took all reasonable and necessary steps to correct the unsafe condition.   The defendants testified credibly that they removed the snow by the use of a snow blower and hand shovels, and sanded and salted the walkways, driveway, and stairs.   It is wholly improbable that the defendants would have cleared all areas, but left the steps in an unsafe condition by not placing sand or salt on them.²  Moreover, the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to his fall.   He was aware that it had snowed the night before, aware of the condition of the walks, yet failed to exercise his own reasonable care in exiting the house carrying a bag with both hands and not utilizing the railing on the steps.

The court finds all issues in favor of the defendants.

Swienton, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The discharge summary from Allied Health and Rehabilitation dated May 19, 2009, indicates that the plaintiff was “treated at the scene by paramedics stabilized and transported to New Britain General Hospital.”   Plaintiff's Exh. 1. However, the plaintiff testified that he received no treatment at the scene and drove himself to the hospital..  FN1. The discharge summary from Allied Health and Rehabilitation dated May 19, 2009, indicates that the plaintiff was “treated at the scene by paramedics stabilized and transported to New Britain General Hospital.”   Plaintiff's Exh. 1. However, the plaintiff testified that he received no treatment at the scene and drove himself to the hospital.

FN2. The plaintiff introduced four pictures of the premises.   The testimony regarding these photos was not credible to the extent the court could not rely on them as evidence of the condition of the stairs at the time the plaintiff fell..  FN2. The plaintiff introduced four pictures of the premises.   The testimony regarding these photos was not credible to the extent the court could not rely on them as evidence of the condition of the stairs at the time the plaintiff fell.

Swienton, Cynthia K., J.