Richard Megos v. Karin Ranta (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE APPLICATION FOR PREJUDGMENT REMEDY

This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident that is alleged to have taken place on October 13, 2012, in which the plaintiff, Richard Megos, received grievous personal injuries.

The plaintiff, pursuant to General Statutes § 52–278a et seq., brings this application for a prejudgment remedy in the amount of $2 million together with a motion for disclosure of assets regarding the property of the defendant, Karin Ranta.   Plaintiff's one-count complaint has been brought in negligence, alleging that the plaintiff was injured when the motorcycle he was operating was struck by a Buick motor vehicle operated by the defendant.   His claims for damages include past and future medical expenses, loss of wages/income, loss of earning capacity, a permanent impairment to his body and to his ability to participate in and enjoy various former pursuits, and physical and emotional pain and suffering.

On November 14, 2013, the court conducted a hearing as to probable cause where all parties had a full opportunity to testify and present witnesses and to present oral argument.   The court heard testimony from Detective Leroy Feeney of the Newington Police Department, a trained accident reconstructionist who was assigned to investigate the parties' accident.   The court also heard testimony from the plaintiff Richard Megos and received various exhibits in evidence.   At the hearing, Megos testified that at the time of the events complained of, he was operating his American Legend custom motorcycle in a westerly direction on Kitts Lane in the town of Newington.   When he reached the intersection of Kitts Lane and the Berlin Turnpike, the traffic control signal was red, and he stopped and remained in the far left lane, intending to turn left when the light changed.   He was first in line in his lane at the intersection.   Once the light turned green he paused briefly to watch two northbound cars stop at the intersection before himself proceeding into the intersection.   Once he proceeded into the intersection he heard a squealing of tires and saw the defendant's northbound Buick approaching from the left for a “millisecond” before the Buick struck his motorcycle broadside.

The impact threw Megos first to the left, where his head and shoulder struck the Buick's hood, and then to the right, crushing his left foot and ankle between the car and the motorcycle.   Finally, he landed on the ground on his shoulder and knee.   He testified that he remained conscious until an ambulance arrived, experiencing agonizing pain, and thereafter waking up in the emergency room.   Megos testified to significant injuries resulting from the collision.   He also introduced medical records and bills documenting his treatment.   He tore his rotator cuff and sustained injuries, inter alia, to his back and his head.   His left foot and left lower leg areas were seriously injured.   Initially, an attempt was made to save the limb through surgery and the use of metal screws and plates, with a “fixator” extending to the hip.   After Megos spent about 2 1/2 weeks in the hospital and a rehabilitation facility, the repair failed and Megos' left leg was amputated just below the knee.   He has undergone at least five surgeries, including two attributable to MERSA infections.   He remains in part wheelchair bound because his incision has yet to heal properly and he is unable to wear his prosthesis long without pain.   The plaintiff described his pain and suffering in some detail.   He has endured a number of surgeries and had to take several pain medications which made him feel “like a slug.”   He expects to have additional surgery in the future due to the aforesaid lack of healing.   He became depressed over the loss of his leg and sought treatment with an antidepressant.   He often feels dizzy.   He described losing his ability to enjoy many life activities, such as skiing and taking his two sons snowboarding.

The plaintiff is presently 62 years old and has been a self-employed kitchen designer-builder for over 27 years.   He testified that he is unable to work as he did previously, although he has kept his business going by hiring others to do the work he previously did himself.   He testified that last year his business declined by $330,000 in gross sales.

The standard for determining probable cause is “a bona fide belief in the existence of facts essential under the law for the action and such as would warrant a [person] of ordinary caution, prudence and judgment, under the circumstances, in entertaining it.”  New England Land Co., Ltd. v. DeMarkey, 213 Conn. 612, 620, 569 A.2d 1098 (1990).  “The role of the court in considering an award of a prejudgment remedy is well established.   Pursuant to our prejudgment remedy statutes ․ the trial court's function is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a judgment will be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in a trial on the merits ․ The hearing in probable cause for the issuance of a prejudgment remedy is not contemplated to be a full scale trial on the merits of the plaintiff's claim.   The plaintiff does not have to establish that he will prevail, only that there is probable cause to sustain the validity of the claim ․ The court's role in such a hearing is to determine probable success by weighing probabilities ․ Probable cause is a flexible common sense standard.   It does not demand that a belief be correct or more likely true than false.”  (Citation omitted;  emphasis in original;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  J.K. Scanlon Co. v. Construction Group, Inc., 80 Conn.App. 345, 349–50, 835 A.2d 79 (2003).  “Moreover, this weighing process applies to both legal and factual issues ․ It is the trial court that must determine, in light of its assessment of the legal issues and the credibility of the witnesses, whether a plaintiff has sustained the burden of showing probable cause to sustain the validity of its claim.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. El Constructors, Inc., 32 Conn.App. 118, 126, 628 A.2d 601 (1993).

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that Megos has met the probable cause standard.   The court finds his uncontroverted testimony to be credible.   The defendant argued that the plaintiff's injuries were due to his own negligence but introduced no evidence in that regard.   Although comparative negligence may be an issue at trial, the evidence presented at this hearing was not such as to provide a basis for defeating a finding that there is probable cause to believe that the plaintiff is likely to prevail at trial.

Plaintiff's injuries are significant, and his medical bills are in excess of $135,000, not including his last surgery.   Taking into account plaintiff's claims for past and future medical expenses, loss of wages/income, loss of earning capacity, a permanent impairment to his body and to his ability to participate in and enjoy various former pursuits, and physical and emotional pain and suffering, and for the reasons stated above, the court finds that the plaintiff has established probable cause that a judgment in the amount of $2 million will be rendered in his favor.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's application for prejudgment remedy is granted in the amount of $2 million, and plaintiff's motion for disclosure of assets is also granted.   It is further ordered that the defendant is hereby restrained from transferring, disposing of, encumbering, or otherwise diminishing the value of said assets until further order of the court.

BY THE COURT

Gleeson, J.

Gleeson, Marcia J., J.