Jack Millette v. Connecticut Post Limited Partnership et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT (RENEWED MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT)

The defendants on October 20, 2011 moved for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence and the court reserved decision.   The defendants then rested and the issues were left to be decided by the jury.   The jury then rendered a plaintiff's verdict of $403,117.60.   On October 27, 2011 the defendants filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict);  Motion to Set Aside Verdict;  and a Motion for Remittitur.   In compliance with Section 16–38 of the Connecticut Practice Book this court must address the issues raised by the defendants.   The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is not a new motion but the renewal of a motion for a directed verdict.  Gagne v. Vaccaro, 255 Conn. 390, 400.   Pursuant to Section 16–37 of the Practice Book this court reserved decision and had the issues submitted to the jury.

Plaintiff in objection to granting this motion contends defendants had control and they had constructive notice of a defective condition.   The evidence presented by the plaintiff did not prove the essential elements to establish the control of the conditions existing where the fall occurred in the construction area.   The existence of a duty owed by the title owners of the property is a question of law based upon the circumstances at hand.  Monk v. Temple George Associates, LLC, 82 Conn.App. 660, 662.

The defendants at the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence argued the plaintiff failed to offer any evidence of issues of (1) control (2) notice and (3) proximate cause.

The evidence at the trial established the defendants were corporate entities involved in the title and ownership of the Connecticut Post Mall in Milford, Connecticut.   On February 27, 2006 there were construction activities in the construction of a movie theater.   The plaintiff was employed by Metroguard, Inc. which provided security guards to secure and patrol activities in the construction area.   The plaintiff alleges he was caused to trip and/or fall on plastic debris in the construction area, and the negligence of the defendants resulted in the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.   Defendants in reliance on LaFlamme v. Dallessio, 261 Conn. 247, 251 argued that liability for injuries caused by defective premises does not depend on who holds legal title but rather on possession and control of the property.   Plaintiff offered no evidence to prove the defendant's were in control over the area where the fall occurred.

The defendants argued defendants had no notice of actual or constructive notice of the specific unsafe condition that caused the accident.   No evidence was presented regarding how long the piece of plastic had existed, and whether defendants had a reasonable time to remedy the alleged defective condition.   Monahan v. Montgomery, 152 Conn. 390, Morris v. King Cole Stores, Inc., 132 Conn. 489, 492.   The percentage of evidence attributed to the defendants in the verdict was the result of speculation and conjecture by the jury.

On the issue of notice the plaintiff's evidence established by the testimony of the plaintiff on both direct and cross examination, as well as the testimony of Felix Velaszquez that plaintiff's fall occurred when his foot got caught in the hanged plastic sliders that he parted to go up the stairs.   There was no testimony of any other debris involved in that area.   The plastic sliders and the scaffolds were not debris but material related to the construction project.   The evidence did not establish the defendants had any knowledge or involvement with the conditions related to the fall.

The plaintiff has failed to sustain the burden of proof that the defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries and the Motion for Directed Verdict is granted.

Howard F. Zoarski

Judge Trial Referee

Zoarski, Howard F., J.T.R.