Carmine Ariano et al. v. Enid Heyse (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (# 115)

Presently before the court is an unopposed motion for summary judgment as to liability only filed by the plaintiffs, Carmine and Grace Ariano, on March 10, 2011.   The ground for the motion is that the plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because there is no genuine issue of material fact that the defendant, Enid Heyse, was negligent when the front of her motor vehicle collided with the rear of the plaintiffs' motor vehicle on July 1, 2008, resulting injuries to the plantiffs.   In support of their motion, the plaintiffs have submitted an affidavit in which they aver, inter alia, that the defendant apologized for rear-ending them, as well as copies of the police report and transcript pages from the defendant's deposition, during which she stated, inter alia, that she had been looking away from the road and at a furniture store to her left when her motor vehicle collided with the plaintiffs' motor vehicle.

“Summary judgment is a method of resolving litigation when pleadings, affidavits, and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law ․ The motion for summary judgment is designed to eliminate the delay and expense of litigating an issue when there is no real issue to be tried.”   (Citations omitted.)  Wilson v. New Haven, 213 Conn. 277, 279, 567 A.2d 829 (1989).   We have held that summary judgment is appropriate only if a fair and reasonable person could conclude only one way.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Dugan v Mobile Medical Testing Services, Inc., 265 Conn. 791, 815, 830 A.2d 752 (2003).   When a party moves for summary judgment “and there [are] no contradictory affidavits, the court properly [decides] the motion by looking only to the sufficiency of the [movant's] affidavits and other proof.”  Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Ins. Co. of Pennsylvcmia, 231 Conn. 756, 795, 653 A.2d 122 (1995).

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff sufficiently demonstrates that there is no real issue to be tried and that a fair and reasonable person could conclude only one way.  “Operating a motor vehicle in traffic while at the same time diverting one's attention from the road is below the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe.”   Colby v. Parrillo, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV 98 0412978 (March 30, 2000, Devlin, J.) (27 Conn. L. Rptr 29, 30).   Furthermore, “[a] motorist has a duty to have his vehicle under control and to stop it before striking other vehicles ahead of him” on a public roadway, Klawitter v. Ciesla, Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia–Milford, Docket No. CV 90 032186 (December 18, 1990, Fuller, J.) (3 Conn. L. Rptr. 37, 37).   There is no genuine issue of material fact that the defendant's negligence in allowing her attention to be diverted from the road and consequently failing to keep her motor vehicle under control at the time of the collision caused the collision and the plaintiffs' resulting injuries.   Again, the court notes that the defendant does not oppose the present motion.   The plaintiffs are thus entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, and accordingly, the court grants their motion.

Woods, J.

Woods, Glenn A., J.