Stacy Evans v. Estate of Earl J. Cordier, Jr. (2016)

memorandum of decision, denying summary judgment, dated April 7, 2016.  Having considered the defendant's position upon reargument, the defendant's motion to reconsider is denied.

MEMORANDUM RE (Motion to Reargue/Reconsider # 121, Short Calendar, May 16, 2015)

Pursuant to Practice Book § 11–12, the defendant, Estate of Earl J. Cordier, Jr. (the Estate), requests that this court reconsider its

In its memorandum of decision this court did not discredit the contractual relationship between the parties and the fact that the plaintiff was hired to conduct extensive cleanup and renovations of the premises located at 17 Country Club Road, Dayville, Connecticut, owned by the Estate.  However, there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Estate had actual or constructive knowledge of the defective condition that caused the plaintiff's injury.  “The controlling question in deciding whether the defendants had constructive notice of the defective condition is whether the condition existed for such a length of time that the defendants should, in the exercise of reasonable care, have discovered it in time to remedy it.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Riccio v. Harbour Village Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 281 Conn. 160, 163, 914 A.2d 529 (2007).

The plaintiff's deposition testimony indicates that while an inspection of the premises took place, there was not a complete inspection of the deck, which is where the plaintiff's injury occurred.¹  The record indicates that the front of the deck was inspected, but the defendant did not walk the entirety of the back porch as it was covered in garbage.  “Issues of negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication but should be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Fogarty v. Rashaw, 193 Conn. 442, 446, 476 A.2d 582 (1984).  Summary judgment is not appropriate in the present matter, as there is a genuine issue of material fact to be decided by a jury, for such reason the motion to reconsider is denied.

THE COURT

CALMAR, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The plaintiff's deposition testimony indicates:  “[The plaintiff and the defendant] walked up onto the porch, and you could only walk three to four feet and then the rest was garbage.  And if you looked out the back deck windows, you could see the garbage right from there also.  You could not walk.”.  FN1. The plaintiff's deposition testimony indicates:  “[The plaintiff and the defendant] walked up onto the porch, and you could only walk three to four feet and then the rest was garbage.  And if you looked out the back deck windows, you could see the garbage right from there also.  You could not walk.”

Calmar, Harry E., J.