Janet Williams, Admx. of the Estate of Cathy Blinstrubas v. Thomas Adkins, Jr. et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT # 204

ISSUE

Whether the court should grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that there is no genuine issue of material fact in this case.

FACTS

On March 15, 2012, the plaintiff, Janet Williams as administratrix of the estate of Cathy Blinstrubas,¹ filed a thirteen-count, third amended complaint (# 153).   The moving defendants, Pines Café, Inc., et al.  (Pines), are named in counts five, six, seven and nine of the amended complaint, which are the operative counts in the present motion.   In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges the following facts.

On November 2, 2010, Cathy Blinstrubas was a passenger in an automobile being operated by a codefendant, Thomas Adkins, Jr. Adkins caused the vehicle to collide with a utility pole, severely injuring Blinstrubas and ultimately causing her death.   Earlier that evening, Adkins consumed alcoholic beverages at Joanne's Café,² where he was served by that defendant's servants, agents, or employees.   The plaintiff alleges that Adkins was visibly intoxicated at the time he was served alcohol at Joanne's Café.   The plaintiff further alleges that she then traveled with Adkins to this defendants' establishment where Adkins was allegedly served further alcoholic beverages despite having knowledge that he was intoxicated and was likely to operate a motor vehicle.   Further, that Blinstrubas suffered injury and death as a result of the defendants' actions, and the plaintiff seeks monetary damages, costs, punitive damages, and attorneys fees on behalf of her estate.

On June 6, 2013, the defendants “Pines” filed a motion for summary judgment as to the said four counts with a memorandum of law in support of the motion, and copies of deposition testimony of Norman Chacho (Exh. A), Kristine Raytar (Exh. B) and the affidavits of David Anderson (Permittee) with Refusal Form and affidavit of Dona Civitello.   On November 12, 2013, the plaintiff filed an objection to the motion for summary judgment accompanied by a memorandum of law, copies of the depositions of Dona Civitello (Exh. A), her affidavit (Exh. B);  deposition of Andrew Michael Grega (Exh. C);  deposition of Kristina Raytar (Exh. D) and affidavit of D. Anderson (Exh. E).  Oral argument was heard by the court at short calendar on December 9, 2013.

DISCUSSION

“Summary judgment is a method of resolving litigation when 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.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Grenier v. Commissioner of Transportation, 306 Conn. 523, 534, 51 A.3d 367 (2012).  “In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Patel v. Flexo Converters U.S.A., Inc., 309 Conn. 52, 57, 68 A.3d 1162 (2013).  “As the party moving for summary judgment, the [movant] is required to support its motion with supporting documentation, including affidavits.”  Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania, 231 Conn. 756, 796, 653 A.2d 122 (1995) Likewise, “[t]he existence of the genuine issue of material fact must be demonstrated by counteraffidavits and concrete evidence.”  (Emphasis omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.)  Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Shivers, 136 Conn.App. 291, 296, 44 A.3d 879, cert. denied, 307 Conn. 938, 56 A.3d 950 (2012).  “ ‘Issue of fact’ encompasses not only evidentiary facts in issue but also questions as to how the trier would characterize such evidentiary facts and what inferences and conclusions it would draw from them.”  United Oil Co. v. Urban Development Commission, 158 Conn. 364, 379, 260 A.2d 596 (1969).

The defendants argue that there is no genuine issue of material fact in the claim that the driver-defendant Adkins was never served any alcohol at any time on the date in question while he was in the defendants' “Pines” bar.   Specifically, the defendant claims that the evidence provided fails to establish that Adkins was served any alcoholic beverages during the alleged 30–minute time frame at the “Pines.”   The plaintiff counters that the deposition testimony, affidavits, and exhibits provided in her objection establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Adkins was served alcohol at the defendants' establishment.   The plaintiff also asserts that because one or more witnesses have not yet been deposed, the defendants' motion should be denied.

Although this is not a valid reason to deny summary judgment, the plaintiff has generated some factual issues surrounding the circumstances of whether Adkins was actually served alcoholic beverage(s) or not while at “Pines.”   The lack of specificity by and conflicting testimony between the relevant witnesses aids the plaintiff in defending against and deflecting the defendants' summary judgment motion.   The resolution of this “yes or no” issue will have a definitive answer, unlike the more open ended issue of how intoxicated the defendant Adkins may have been at any given time during the course of the evening.

The court finds that the plaintiff has raised sufficient questions surrounding the issue of whether Adkins was served or not any alcoholic beverages at “Pines,” and therefore has successfully challenged the defendants' motion for summary judgment.   However, the defendants have raised a persuasive argument and a believable factual scenario that may allow any subsequent factfinder with full overview of each witness's credibility to easily arrive at their suggested result.

Therefore, at this juncture, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied.

BY THE COURT

V. ROCHE, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Although Norman Chacho, Jr., is also a plaintiff, the subject counts at issue, counts five, six and seven, are brought by Williams alone.   For purposes of this memorandum, Williams will be referred to as the plaintiff.   Count nine was brought by Norman Chacho, Jr., sounding in recklessness against the said defendants..  FN1. Although Norman Chacho, Jr., is also a plaintiff, the subject counts at issue, counts five, six and seven, are brought by Williams alone.   For purposes of this memorandum, Williams will be referred to as the plaintiff.   Count nine was brought by Norman Chacho, Jr., sounding in recklessness against the said defendants.

FN2. Court adopts the factual rendition contained in its Memorandum of Decision of November 22, 2013 (# 228)..  FN2. Court adopts the factual rendition contained in its Memorandum of Decision of November 22, 2013 (# 228).

Roche, Vincent E., J.