DocketNumber: No. 51 86 00
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 5514
Judges: HURLEY, J.
Filed Date: 5/19/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The plaintiffs allege in count one of their complaint that the defendant's negligence caused Jean Wilson to suffer personal injuries and a diminished earning capacity. The plaintiffs allege in count two of their complaint that the defendant's negligence caused Roger L. Wilson the loss of consortium and affection of his wife, Jean Wilson. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages and all other equitable relief.
On November 22, 1991, the defendant filed an answer and a special defense alleging comparative negligence. On October 20, 1992, the plaintiffs filed a reply to the defendant's special defense, denying all allegations contained therein.
On February 15, 1994, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs' complaint on the ground that the complaint is legally insufficient because the defendant had neither control over nor notice of the said defects. The defendant submitted a supporting memorandum of law and deposition testimony of the plaintiffs.
On March 11, 1994, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The defendant's motion for summary judgment is considered as against the plaintiffs' amended complaint.
On March 11, 1994, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs contend that because the defendant was responsible for maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition, the defendant is liable for the plaintiffs' injuries. The plaintiffs submitted supporting affidavits.
On March 23, 1994, the defendant filed a reply to the plaintiffs' memorandum of law in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The defendant argues that because the plaintiffs have made no showing that the defendant effectively retained control over the leased area on which Jean Wilson fell, the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted.
DISCUSSION
"Summary judgment is a method of resolving litigation when pleadings, affidavits, and any other proof submitted show CT Page 5516 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." (Citations omitted.) Wilson v. New Haven,
"In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." (Citations omitted.) Connecticut Bank Trust Co. v. Carriage Lane Associates,
The "party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the nonexistence of any material fact. . . ." (Citation omitted.) Id. "The courts hold the movant to a strict standard." D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly,
"[A] party opposing summary judgment must substantiate its adverse claim by showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact together with the evidence disclosing the existence of such an issue." (Citations omitted.) Connell v.Colwell,
The defendant argues that the plaintiffs' action is legally insufficient because a landlord is not liable to a CT Page 5517 tenant for personal injuries arising from the defective condition of a premises if the landlord has not made a warranty or contract in connection therewith. Citing deposition testimony from Jean Wilson, the defendant argues that because the plaintiffs concede that the "defendant landlord was not in control of the demised staircase, nor provided any notice of the staircases' defective condition . . ., the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendant landlord." Citing deposition testimony from Roger L. Wilson, the defendant argues that because "the defendant had no notice of the alleged unsafe condition of the staircase[, the defendant] cannot be held liable for injuries allegedly caused by such condition."
The plaintiffs argue that the defendant is liable for injuries arising from the defendant's defective and dangerous premises. In support of their contention, the plaintiffs submit personal affidavits stating that "it was the landlord's responsibility to maintain the building in a reasonably safe condition so as to prevent a fall on the stairwell which occurred in this instance. . . ."
"`Liability for injuries caused by defective premises is not based upon title, but on possession and control.'" Garnettv. McDonald's Corporation,
Unless it is definitively expressed in the lease, the circumstances of the particular case determine whether the lessor had reserved control of the premises or whether they were under the exclusive dominion of the tenant, and it becomes a question of fact and is a matter of intention in the light of all the significant and attendant facts which bear on the issue.
(Citation omitted.) Panaroni v. Johnson,
"Issues of negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication but should be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner." Fogarty v. Rashaw,
Neither party to the present action has submitted evidence demonstrating the existence of a lease containing definitive expressions as to whether the lessor had reserved control of the premises. It is, therefore, a question of fact regarding the intent of the parties in connection with the control of the defective premises. See Panaroni v. Johnson, supra, 98.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the defendant has failed to demonstrate the nonexistence of any material fact. The defendant's motion for summary judgment is hereby denied.
Hurley, J.
Casanova Club v. Bisharat , 189 Conn. 591 ( 1983 )
Panaroni v. Johnson , 158 Conn. 92 ( 1969 )
D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly , 180 Conn. 430 ( 1980 )
Farlow v. Andrews Corporation , 154 Conn. 220 ( 1966 )
Martel v. Malone , 138 Conn. 385 ( 1951 )
Spencer v. Good Earth Restaurant Corporation , 164 Conn. 194 ( 1972 )