Lori Ortiz v. National Amusements, Inc. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

In this premises liability action, the defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant had constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition and that the plaintiff has failed to do so.

“In seeking summary judgment, it is the movant who has the burden of showing the nonexistence of any issue of fact.   The courts are in entire agreement that the moving party for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Maltas v. Maltas, 298 Conn. 354, 365, 2 A.3d 902 (2010).   To be entitled to summary judgment based on the absence of constructive notice, the defendant must submit evidence demonstrating that the alleged condition had not existed for such a length of time that the defendant should, in the exercise of due care, have discovered it.   See, e.g., Williams v. Autotote Enterprises, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV 08 5024151 (December 6, 2010, Woods, J.).

The defendant submits the following evidence.   First, the plaintiff and her husband did not know how long the alleged dangerous condition existed.   Second, the defendant's manager, Scott Collins, inspected the stairs after the plaintiff allegedly suffered injuries and found no evidence of a defect.   The defendant has not submitted evidence demonstrating that the alleged defect did not exist for a length of time such that the defendant should have discovered it.   The defendant has failed its burden on this motion for summary judgment.   Thus, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is hereby denied.

Woods, J.

Woods, Glenn A., J.