Muir v. Holt, No. Cv90 0111973 S (Jan. 30, 1992) ( 1992 )

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff in the above entitled matter has brought suit to recover for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained as a result of the negligence of the defendant in causing his vehicle to strike the rear of the vehicle in which the plaintiff was a passenger. The affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant states that the vehicle in which the plaintiff was a passenger, stopped abruptly so that contact was made between the two vehicles.

In the determination of a motion for summary judgment, the facts must be reviewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and, to grant the motion, the facts must entitle the moving party to a directed verdict. Nolan v. Borkowski, 206 Conn. 495,500, 505 (1988); Batick v. Seymour, 186 Conn. 632, 647 (1982). The issues of negligence are ordinarily not susceptible to determination by summary judgment. Fogarty v. Rashaw, 193 Conn. 442,446 (1984); Esposito v. Wethered, 4 Conn. App. 641, 644 (1985). CT Page 159

In the present case the court cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that there are no genuine issues of material fact with respect to the issues of liability.

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied.

RUSH, J.