DocketNumber: No. CV90 0107363 S
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 4838
Judges: RUSH, J.
Filed Date: 5/29/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The father of the plaintiff has filed an affidavit which he states that he personally observed the accident scene and personally observed a defect in the sidewall of the tire claimed to be shown in a photograph submitted with the affidavit. The affidavit also states that the after market rim was wider then it should have been, and that the tire and rim were defective. The affidavit also states that the plaintiff's father has been in the landscaping, building and auto repair business for decades and that he is familiar with the physical characteristics of tires and rims and the changing and repairs of same.
The court cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that plaintiff's father is not qualified to testify as an expert nor can the court conclude, as a matter of law, that evidence that he might give is inadmissible. The court therefore concludes that defendants have failed to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
RUSH, J.