DocketNumber: No. CV 98-0167447 S CT Page 6229
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 6228, 29 Conn. L. Rptr. 575
Judges: D'ANDREA, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 5/15/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
A motion for summary judgment shall be granted "if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show 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." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Milesv. Foley,
The defendant argues that there is no evidence to support a finding that the defendant owes a duty to the plaintiff based on the allegations CT Page 6230 as set forth by the plaintiffs and therefore, summary judgment must be granted. The defendant contends that there was no written contract between the parties. Furthermore, the defendant argues that it only provided and delivered fuel to the plaintiffs as evidenced by an application to extend credit, a new customer form, and a print out of fuel deliveries. The plaintiffs respond that the defendant is in the business of providing and delivering fuel and therefore, is in the best position to warn the plaintiffs of the perils of an underground storage tank. Consequently, the plaintiffs argue that the defendant breached its duty to them because the defendant did not advise the plaintiffs of the perils of an underground storage tank.
"Issues of negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication but should be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Amendola v. Geremia,
"A duty to use care may arise from a contract, from a statute, or from circumstances under which a reasonable person, knowing what he knew or should have known, would anticipate that harm of the general nature of that suffered was likely to result from his act or failure to act." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Burns v. Board of Education,
(1994). Thus, the absence of a written contract between parties is not dispositive of whether a defendant owes a duty of care to a plaintiff. Rather, "the test for the existence of a legal duty of care entails (1) a determination of whether an ordinary person in the defendant's position, knowing what the defendant knew or should have known, would anticipate that harm of the general nature of that suffered was likely to result, and (2) a determination, on the basis of a public policy analysis, of whether the defendant's responsibility for its negligent conduct should extend to the particular consequences or particular plaintiff in the case. . . . The first part of the test invokes the question of foreseeability, and the second part invokes the question of policy." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gazo v. City of Stamford,
The court will address the public policy prong of the standard first. The court finds that a question of fact remains as to the nature and extent of the defendant's responsibility to the plaintiffs under its agreement to supply and deliver fuel to the plaintiffs and whether that responsibility extended to the particular consequences of a leaky underground storage tank. Moreover, contrary to the defendant's assertions, the defendant's exhibits and affidavit in no way shed light on whether its responsibilities were limited to the supplying and delivering of oil. The court finds, therefore, that there is a genuine issue of material fact in dispute as to whether the defendant's responsibility should extend to these particular circumstances. Furthermore, the defendant has not offered any evidence to show what standard of care is customary in the industry regarding the type of services the defendant provides to the plaintiffs. Thus, this court also finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact in dispute as to the foreseeability prong of the standard. Consequently, the defendant has not met its burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact in dispute. See Appleton v. Board of Education, supra,
_____________________________ D'ANDREA, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE