Richard Oviatt et al. v. Wendy Wassong et al. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff, Richard Oviatt sued the defendant, Aimee Wassong, for slander.   The defendant filed a counterclaim for assault.   Both causes of action arise out of the same incident and were tried together to the court on May 30, 2012.   For the reasons set forth, the court finds for the defendant on the complaint and for the plaintiff on the counterclaim because neither moving party sustained his or her burden of proof.

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove all the essential allegations of the complaint.  Lukas v. New Haven, 184 Conn. 205, 211 (1981).   The defendant has the same burden of proof with respect to her counterclaim.   Mankert v. Elmatco Products, Inc., 84 Conn.App. 456, 463 (2004).   In an ordinary civil case, a party satisfies his or her burden of proof if the evidence, considered fairly and impartially, induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that it is more probable than not that the fact or issue is true.  Busker v. United Illuminating Co., 156 Conn. 456, 458 (1968).   When the evidence is equally balanced or in equipose, then the proponent has not met his or her burden of proof.  Brodie v. Connecticut Co., 87 Conn. 363, 364 (1913).

The court has considered and weighed the credible evidence of both parties.   Based on that evidence the court finds the following facts.   The plaintiff owns and operates an auto body business on Bridge Street in New Milford.   The property is adjacent to property owned by Wendy Wassong who lives there with her daughter, Aimee Wassong, who is the defendant in this case.   On July 28, 2009 the plaintiff and Wendy Wassong had been engaged in a long-standing boundary line dispute.   On that day the plaintiff began cutting branches from a tree which was on or near the boundary line between the two properties.   Wendy Wassong came outside to confront the plaintiff about his right to cut the branches.   After exchanging words with Wendy Wassong the plaintiff went back inside his business to call the police.   While he was doing so, he noticed that the defendant, Aimee Wassong, had come outside with a camera and was taking pictures while standing on his side of the boundary line.   He immediately went back outside and approached the defendant where an angry confrontation took place.

The defendant and her mother, Wendy Wassong, testified that the plaintiff struck or grabbed the defendant's right wrist in an attempt to dislodge the camera.   The plaintiff and his secretary testified that the plaintiff never struck or grabbed the defendant.   When the police arrived the defendant reported that the plaintiff had grabbed her wrist.

This contradictory testimony is the source of both claims.   The defendant in her counterclaim alleges that the plaintiff assaulted her by striking her wrist.   She claims money damages.   The plaintiff claims that the defendant slandered her by making a false report to the police.   He claims money damages.

Both claims must fail.   The defendant was not able to sustain her burden of proof that the plaintiff struck or grabbed her wrist.   Nor was the plaintiff able to sustain his burden of proof that the defendant made a false report to the police.   The testimony of the plaintiff and his secretary is equally balanced against the testimony of the defendant and her mother.   All four of these witnesses have an equal interest in the outcome of this case and have similar reasons for remembering the events in ways favoring his or her own side.   The court must judge the credibility of witnesses.   The court finds reason to question the credibility of all four of the main witnesses.   The evidence between the two parties remains in equipoise.   Therefore, judgment will enter for the defendant on the complaint and for the plaintiff on the counterclaim.

BY THE COURT,

John W. Pickard

Pickard, John W., J.