Jorge Espinoza–Tigre v. The Primrose Companies, Inc. (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (# 127)

The plaintiff, Jorge Espinoza–Tigre (“Espinoza”), has brought a one-count complaint in this matter alleging common-law negligence against the defendant, The Primrose Companies, Inc. (“Primrose”), regarding injuries and losses which he allegedly sustained while working on a construction project of which Primrose was the general contractor.

In his complaint the plaintiff has alleged, and in its answer to the complaint the defendant has admitted, that the defendant was the general contractor on the project and that the plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant.

Primrose has moved the court for summary judgment in the above-captioned matter arguing that there are no genuine issues of material fact that judgment should enter in its favor.

Espinoza has filed an objection to the motion for summary judgment and claims;  that the defendant, or its agents, servants and/or employees, was negligent in a number of different ways and that said negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's injuries and losses.

“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.”  (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)   Miles v. Foley, 253 Conn. 381, 385–86 (2000).  “In opposing a motion for summary judgment, a party is not required to present evidence necessary to prevail at trial, only evidence sufficient to raise issues of fact.”   Vaillancourt v. Latifi, 81 Conn.App. 541, 544 n.4 (2004).  “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).

Having considered the arguments of the parties, the court finds that there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant, The Primrose Companies, Inc., exercised a level of control over the plaintiff, Espinoza, sufficient to establish Primrose's liability for the plaintiff's injuries and losses.   For that reason, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is hereby denied.

BY THE COURT,

JOSEPH W. DOHERTY, JUDGE

Doherty, Joseph W., J.