DocketNumber: No. CV94 031 54 83
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 6454
Judges: MAIOCCO, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 6/30/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
On April 12, 1995, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that "there is no issue of material fact regarding the plaintiff's allegations of negligence." The defendant filed a memorandum of law in support. The defendant also submitted an affidavit from Mary C. Gennarini, an employee of the defendant, and certified copies of certain building regulations as exhibits.
On May 8, 1995, Whittingham filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Whittingham also filed an affidavit from John F. Fitzgerald, a consulting forensic engineer.
"Practice Book § 384 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."Barrett v. Danbury Hospital,
The defendant argues that it has established that it did not commit negligence per se. The building regulations, which the defendant filed with its motion, indicate that when the building was built the regulations did not require safety glass. The defendant contends that because the complaint is based upon the failure to have safety glass and the law did not require safety glass, the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The defendant cites Josephson v. Meyers,
Whittingham, argues that action is based upon common law negligence, not negligence per se.
A fair reading of the allegations of the complaint indicates that it is founded in common law negligence. The complaint does not refer to any statute or local ordinance, a violation of which constitutes negligence per se.2 Whether the defendant had a common law duty to install safety glass is an open question, which is not raised in this motion for summary judgment. Genuine issues of material fact exist as to the common law negligence of the defendant.
The motion for summary judgment is therefore denied.
BY THE COURT MAIOCCO, JUDGE