DocketNumber: No. CV 95-0465792S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 13477
Judges: ROBINSON, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 11/25/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The pertinent facts are as follows. The plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle which was struck by the vehicle driven by defendant Collazo. According to the police report and the affidavit submitted by defendant Lancto, he was proceeding in a southbound direction on Weston Street, in Hartford. Defendant Collazo exited from a private driveway and struck defendant Lancto and then struck the vehicle in which the plaintiff was traveling. The allegations in the plaintiff's complaint assert that defendant Lancto was negligent in that he was speeding; failed to apply his brakes; and failed to sound his horn to give warning of the impending collision. In his affidavit Lancto CT Page 13478 attests that he was not speeding; was not inattentive and had his vehicle under proper control.
A "motion for summary judgment is designed to eliminate the delay and expense of litigating an issue when there is no real issue to be tried." Wilson v. New Haven,
"Although the moving party has the burden of presenting evidence that shows the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, the opposing party must substantiate its adverse claim withevidence disclosing the existence of such an issue." (Emphasis added.) Haesche v. Kissner,
The defendant has sufficiently supported it Motion for Summary Judgment with an affidavit and other supporting documentation. Although negligence actions are generally not well suited for summary judgments and although there are unadmitted allegations in the pleadings as to Lancto's negligence, neither of these facts, alone, are sufficient to defeat the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Unsupported conclusions are not enough to raise issues of disputed material facts. Gutpa v. NewBritain General Hospital,
It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to provide this court with evidence which would be admissible at trial, to establish the existence of a conflict in facts. The plaintiff seems to be relying on the allegations stated in his complaint to create the requisite issue of material facts. This reliance is misplaced. The plaintiff had a duty to provide evidentiary facts, not merely conclusory statements in its pleading. Without such proof, this court finds that there is no issue of material fact in dispute regarding the liability of the defendant Lancto. Therefore, this court grants defendant Lancto's Motion for Summary Judgment.
ANGELA CAROL ROBINSON JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT