Patricia Hricz v. Connecticut Post Limited Partnership et al. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This case involves a claim by the plaintiff, Patricia Hricz, that she was caused to slip and fall on an accumulation of ice and snow on the premises of the defendant on February 22, 2008.

The defendant has moved the court for summary judgment arguing that the evidence and expert testimony which it presented in support of this motion is sufficient to permit the court to find that there is no genuine issue of material fact that there was a storm ongoing not only at the time of the plaintiff's fall, but for a considerable period of time both before and after her fall.

Practice Book § 17–49 provides that summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the 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.”  “In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”  Miles v. Foley, 253 Conn. 381, 385–86 (2000).

“To satisfy his burden, the movant must make a showing that it is quite clear what the truth is, and that excludes any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact.”  Fogarty v. Rashaw, 193 Conn. 442, 445 (1984).  “Although the moving party has the burden of presenting evidence that shows the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, the opposing party must substantiate its adverse claim with evidence disclosing the existence of such an issue.”  Haesche v. Kissner, 229 Conn. 213, 217 (1994).

Having considered the evidence and testimony, the court agrees with the defendant's assertion and finds that the plaintiff has failed to offer sufficient evidence to refute the defendant's claim.   The court is guided by the holding in Krause v. Newton, 211 Conn. 191 (1989).

The court further finds that the plaintiff has not offered sufficient evidence to support her allegation that the cause of the plaintiff's fall was an accumulation of “old ice” on the premises which was the responsibility of the defendant to treat or remove.   The defendant offered sufficient evidence and testimony to refute that allegation.

Finally, the court notes the plaintiff's argument that she was unable to produce the necessary evidence to establish her claims due to the failure of the defendant to supply discovery information.   The history of the pleadings in this case permit the court to find that the plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of showing a valid reason why the motion should be denied or consideration of it be postponed.   See Peerless Insurance Co. v. Gonzalez, 241 Conn. 476 (1997).

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.

BY THE COURT,

JOSEPH W. DOHERTY, JUDGE

Doherty, Joseph W., J.