Britt Williams, Administrator v. Benjamin Camerota et al. (2012)

RULING ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT # s 150 & 167

The motions for summary judgment filed by the defendant Benjamin Camerota (Motion # 150) and the defendants Shanice King and Anna Colassale (Motion # 167) are denied.

“The party moving 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 judgment as a matter of law.   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.”  Dougherty v. Graham, 161 Conn. 248, 250, 287 A.2d 382 (1971).

“Litigants have a constitutional right to have issues of fact decided by a jury.  Ardoline v. Keegan, 140 Conn. 552, 555, 102 A.2d 352.   Summary judgment procedure ‘is especially ill-adapted to negligence cases, where, as here, the ultimate issue in contention involves a mixed question of fact and law, and requires the trier of fact to determine whether the standard of care was met in a specific situation ․ [T]he conclusion of negligence is necessarily one of fact;  Cappiello v. Haselman, 154 Conn. 490, 495, 227 A.2d 79;  Farrell v. Waterbury Horse R. Co., 60 Conn. 239, 250, 21 A. 675.’  Pine Point Corporation v. Westport Bank & Trust Co., [164 Conn. 54, 56, 316 A.2d 765].   Issues of negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication but should be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner.   Aetna Ins. Co. v. Cooper Wells & Co., 234 F.2d 342, 344 (6th Cir.);   Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 54 Del. 463, 180 A.2d 467;  Johnson v. Farha Village Supermarkets, Inc., 208 Kan. 241, 491 P.2d 904;  Duchesneau v. Silver Bow County, 158 Mont. 369, 492 P.2d 926.”  Spencer v. Good Earth Restaurant Corporation, 164 Conn. 194, 198–99, 319 A.2d 403 (1972).

“[A plaintiff is] required to remove the issues of negligence and proximate cause from the field of conjecture and speculation.  Chasse v. Albert, 147 Conn. 680, 683, 166 A.2d 148;  Palmieri v. MacEro, 146 Conn. 705, 707, 155 A.2d 750.   A plaintiff, however, may sustain his burden of proof by circumstantial evidence.   A jury must often rely on circumstantial evidence and draw inferences from it.  Blados v. Blados, 151 Conn. 391, 396, 198 A.2d 213.   The drawing of inferences is peculiarly a jury function.”  Terminal Taxi Co. v. Flynn, 156 Conn. 313, 316–17, 240 A.2d 881 (1968).

“A party has the same right to submit a weak case as he has to submit a strong one.”  Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, 184 Conn. 607, 610, 440 A.2d 810 (1981).

A careful review of the attachments submitted by the defendants and the plaintiff persuade the court that there are genuine issues of material facts surrounding the actions of the plaintiff's decedent and the defendants.   Arguably, the plaintiff's theory of liability lies in the vicinity of the borderline between claims that may be proven by circumstantial evidence, and claims based on conjecture and speculation.   In this case, the circumstantial evidence contained in the extensive investigation reports of the accident gives rise to issues of material fact pertaining to the defendants' alleged negligence that should be determined by a jury.   See Burton v. Stamford, 115 Conn.App. 47, 88, 971 A.2d 739 (directed verdict for defendant in negligence case reversed where a factual dispute existed as to defendant's actions), cert. denied, 293 Conn. 912, 978 A.2d 1108 (2009).

The case of Pion v. Southern New England Telephone Co., 44 Conn.App. 657, 691 A.2d 1107 (1997), is distinguishable.   The plaintiff in that case alleged the defendant was negligent in placing a repeater box off to the side of a road.   The plaintiff was injured when the bicycle he was riding struck the repeater box.   The testimony of a witness established that it was customary for bicycle riders to ride in the middle of the road because trees and grass made it nearly impossible to ride off to the side or on the shoulder.   In his opposition to summary judgment, the plaintiff did not offer affidavits or other proof to counter this evidence.   The court concluded that the plaintiff had not established that the defendant owed him a duty of care.   In this case, the circumstantial evidence contained in the accident reports is sufficient to establish that issues of fact exist as to the alleged negligence of the defendants.

Domnarski, J.

Domnarski, Edward S., J.