DocketNumber: No. CV96 0151003
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 10948
Judges: D'ANDREA, J.
Filed Date: 9/25/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
This action arose from an accident involving five automobiles. The plaintiff was a passenger, riding in a motor vehicle owned and operated by her husband, Mohammad Deura. The plaintiff alleges that the "defendant Deborah Grose came to an abrupt stop causing a 1991 Dodge, owned and operated by defendant Thomas A. Pote, to crash into her vehicle, in turn causing a 1992 Pontiac, operated by defendant Carla Velasquez, and owned by defendant Martha Saballos, to crash into his vehicle, in turn causing a 1989 Ford Taurus, operated by defendant Geoffrey Mosher, and owned by defendant, Deborah Code, to crash into her vehicle, in turn causing the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger to crash into his vehicle, causing plaintiff to be thrown about the inside of the automobile, . . ." The plaintiff CT Page 10949 alleges that each defendant was negligent, in whole or in part, for the injuries she sustained in the accident.
One of the defendants, Thomas Pote ("Pote"), moves for summary judgment in his favor on the fifth count of the plaintiff's revised complaint. Pote argues that the plaintiff cannot prove the issue of negligence, as regards Mr. Pote, and accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute. Defendant Pote submitted his own affidavit, a police accident report and the deposition testimony of the plaintiff in support of his motion.
The plaintiff objects to Pote's motion for summary judgment, arguing that genuine issues of material fact exist, and therefore, the motion should be denied. In support of her objection, the plaintiff submits an affidavit executed by apportionment defendant Mohammad Deura.
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,
Summary judgment "is appropriate only if a fair and reasonable person could conclude only one way." Miller v. UnitedTechnologies Corp. ,
"The movant has the burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. . . . [T]he party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact." (Emphasis in original.) Gupta v. New Britain General Hospital,
"A material fact has been defined adequately and simply as a fact which would make a difference in the result of the case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) United Oil Co. v. UrbanDevelopment Commission,
"Issues of negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary judgment adjudication but should be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)Fogarty v. Rashaw,
Generally, an issue of causation is a question of fact for the trier of fact. Abrahams v. Young and Rubicam, Inc.,
Pote concedes, in his memorandum of law in support of his summary judgment motion, that issues of negligence are not usually decided on a motion for summary judgment. He argues, however, that "there are exceptions and this case is one of them." Yet, defendant Pote cites no authority for this assertion.
Defendant Pote, as the moving party, has failed to meet his burden "of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact." Gupta v. New Britain General Hospital, supra,
Pote argues that "he was in proper control of his vehicle. . . . [and] was in a stopped position, waiting for the vehicles in front to move [when h]e was suddenly struck in the rear by another vehicle, which pushed his vehicle forward into the car in front of him." This is merely a statement, made by the defendant, about what he asserts is the truth. However, it is the obligation of the trier of fact to determine what happened because rational people may disagree.
The plaintiff submits the affidavit of Mohammad Deura, the apportionment defendant, in support of her opposition to Pote's motion for summary judgment. Mohammad Deura details the events which led to the accident, according to his recollection. Mohammad Deura's recollection differs from that of Pote's, and raises the existence of disputed, material facts which should be determined by the trier of fact.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (the plaintiff), rational people could disagree as to whether Pote was negligent, in whole or in part, for the accident that injured the plaintiff. It is not "quite clear" what the truth is, creating doubt which should be resolved by the trier of fact. Since there are genuine issues of material fact which should be determined by the trier of fact, defendant Pote's motion for summary judgment is denied.
So Ordered.
D'ANDREA, J. CT Page 10952