Shianne Sebastian v. Jennifer Sanquedolce et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (# 138)

FACTS

This case arises out of an incident that occurred on January 10, 2006, when the plaintiff, Shianne Sebastian, was allegedly injured during a high school cheerleading practice in North Stonington, Connecticut.   The plaintiff, as well as her mother, Colleen Sebastian, assert negligence claims in a five-count revised complaint against the defendants, Jennifer Sanquedolce, the junior varsity cheerleading coach, Sheri Tardiff, the varsity cheerleading coach, and the Town of North Stonington Board of Education.   Scheduling orders were put into place regarding the disclosure of expert witnesses.   After the plaintiff's January 2011 supplemental disclosure did not include anyone with a background in cheerleading, the defendants filed a motion in limine, on February 1, 2011, asking the court to preclude the plaintiff from attempting to offer any evidence on the issue of the standard of care for a cheerleading coach in training, supervising, directing and/or teaching cheerleading.   The court, Devine, J., granted the defendants' motion on February 3, 2011.   On February 28, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the defendant's motion in limine, which Judge Devine denied on March 8, 2011.   On April 5, 2011, the defendants filed a motion for permission to file summary judgment, which the court, Martin, J., granted on April 19, 2011.   Accordingly, on April 21, 2011, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and accompanying memorandum of law on the ground that the plaintiff cannot establish a breach of the duty of care, and thus the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.   The plaintiff filed an objection to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, as well as a memorandum of law in support of her objection, on May 16, 2011.   The defendants filed a reply memorandum on May 23, 2011.

DISCUSSION

“Summary judgment is a method of resolving litigation when 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 ․ 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).  “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 the material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law.   The courts hold the movant to a strict standard ․ Once the moving party has met its burden, however, the opposing party must present evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed factual issue ․ It is not enough, however, for the opposing party merely to assert the existence of such a disputed issue.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Ramirez v. Health Net of the Northeast, Inc., 285 Conn. 1, 10–11, 938 A.2d 576 (2008).

In the present case, the defendants argue that as a matter of law, the plaintiff cannot prove her negligence case against them as she has failed to disclose a necessary expert, and given Judge Devine's granting of the defendants' motion in limine and the applicability of the law of the case doctrine, the plaintiff cannot prove a breach of a duty of care to support an actionable negligence claim.   In response, the plaintiff submits a near-verbatim memorandum that was used in support of her motion for reconsideration of the defendants' motion in limine, contending that an expert in the field of cheerleading is not needed in this case, as it involves “ordinary negligence and simple concepts.”

“The essential elements of a cause of action in negligence are well established:  duty;  breach of that duty;  causation;  and actual injury.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Silano v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 85 Conn.App. 450, 453, 857 A.2d 439 (2004).  “If the determination of the standard of care requires knowledge that is beyond the experience of an ordinary fact finder, expert testimony will be required.”  Santropietro v. New Haven, 239 Conn. 207, 226, 682 A.2d 106 (1996).

“The law of the case doctrine provides that [w]here a matter has previously been ruled upon interlocutorily, the court in a subsequent proceeding in the case may treat that decision as the law of the case, if it is of the opinion that the issue was correctly decided, in the absence of some new or overriding circumstance.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Signore v. Signore, 110 Conn.App. 126, 133, 954 A.2d 245 (2008).  “Underlying the law of the case doctrine is the view that [a] judge should hesitate to change his own rulings in a case and should be even more reluctant to overrule those of another judge.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Wasko v. Manella, 87 Conn.App. 390, 395, 865 A.2d 1223 (2005).

Here, the plaintiff has been specifically excluded from presenting evidence on the issue of the standard of care for a cheerleading coach in training, supervising, directing and teaching cheerleaders.   By granting the defendants' motion in limine and denying the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, Judge Devine has twice implicitly held that an expert would be needed to establish a breach of any duty of care.   Therefore, as a matter of law, the plaintiff cannot establish a requisite element of negligence, and thus her claims must fail.   This court will not disturb Judge Devine's two rulings that prevent the plaintiff from presenting any evidence regarding the standard of care for a cheerleading coach.   The plaintiff has not presented any new evidence or circumstances that would lead this court to conclude that the knowledge needed to determine whether a breach occurred is within the common experience of an ordinary fact finder.   The defendants have met their burden by establishing to this court's satisfaction that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the plaintiff's inability to prove all necessary elements of a negligence claim and thus are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court hereby grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Cosgrove, J.

Cosgrove, Emmet L., J.