DocketNumber: No. 116719
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 10484
Judges: HURLEY, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 8/15/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
On August 13, 2001, Pavent filed a motion for summary judgment with a supporting memorandum of law and documentary evidence. Orowson filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Pavent's motion for summary judgment on March 11, 2002, which memorandum was accompanied by supporting documentary evidence. Subsequently, both parties filed multiple supplemental memoranda, together with supporting documentary evidence.
Practice Book §
Pavent argues that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the motion for summary judgment should be granted as a matter of law. Pavent argues that Orowson has failed to set forth any evidence demonstrating that Pavent was negligent and, therefore, Pavent is not liable for Orowson's injuries. In support of her motion, Pavent has submitted excerpts of Orowson's deposition testimony, in which Orowson states that Pavent was not negligent. In addition, Pavent has submitted her own affidavit, in which she avers that the she was stopped at a red light with her foot on the brake when another motorist collided with the rear of her vehicle. Pavent attests that the negligence of that operator, who is not a party to this action, was the cause of the accident.
Orowson argues that the motion for summary judgment should be denied because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to Pavent's negligence. Orowson has submitted excerpts of his own deposition testimony, excerpts of deposition testimony of Pavent and of Pavent's physician, and copies of Pavent's medical reports, which evidence relates to Orowson's loss of consciousness and recollection of the accident and Pavent's medical condition and driving restrictions at the time of the accident. Orowson maintains that the issue of Pavent's negligence should not be resolved by a motion for summary judgment.
It is well-established that issues of negligence should not be decided by summary judgment motions. "Issues of negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication but should be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fogarty v.Rashaw,
In the present case, Orowson has met his burden by utilizing the deposition testimony and medical reports to raise questions as to Pavent's operation of the motor vehicle and her medical condition and driving restrictions at the time of the accident. "In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is not to decide issues of CT Page 10486 material fact, but rather to determine whether any such issues exist."Nolan v. Borkowski,
D. Michael Hurley, JTR