DocketNumber: No. CV96-0381865S
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7206
Judges: SILBERT, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 12/12/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Summary judgment must be granted if the pleadings, affidavits, and other documentary proof 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. Conn. Practice Book § 384; Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp. ,
The purpose of summary judgment is to eliminate the delay and expense accompanying a trial where there is no real issue to be tried. Dowling v. Kielak,
Once the moving party has submitted evidence in support of the motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must present evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed factual issue. Bartha v. Waterbury House Wrecking Co.,
The party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegation or denial but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
Assuming, arguendo, that Heather Dolan's admission to the investigating police officer that she backed into the plaintiff's vehicle is sufficient, in the absence of any affidavits to the contrary, and in conjunction with the plaintiff's own affidavit to the same effect, to establish beyond dispute that the accident was the Dolan's fault, there remains the question of whether, even if she caused the accident, the defendant caused the plaintiff's injuries. In that regard, the defendants have submitted the affidavit of Bruce F. McNally, of Northeast Collision Analysis Inc., whom the defendants have also disclosed as one of their expert witnesses. According to McNally's affidavit, he is an accredited accident reconstructionist who has CT Page 7208 worked for several years in that occupation and who has experience as an expert witness. The essence of his affidavit is that the impact as alleged by the plaintiff was incapable of producing the injuries which he claims to have sustained. Based on this affidavit, the defendants object to summary judgment on the grounds that there is a material dispute as to whether any negligence on the part of the defendants, even if established, could have been the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. It is further the contention of the defendants that the issue of causation is inextricably intertwined with the issue of liability and that the plaintiff is therefore not entitled to a judgment as to liability as a matter of law.
To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant's conduct "legally caused" the injuries. Wu v.Fairfield,
The second component of "legal cause" is proximate cause, which the Supreme Court has defined as "``[a]n actual cause that is a substantial factor in the resulting harm. . . .' Coburn v.Lenox Homes, Inc.,
The "test" of proximate cause is whether the defendant's conduct is a "substantial factor" in producing the plaintiff's injury. Wu v. Fairfield, supra, 438; Boehm v. Kish, supra; see also Ferndale Dairy, Inc. v. Geiger,
Thus, proximate cause is an essential element of the negligence action and must be determined in the plaintiff's favor in order to establish liability. See Doe v. Manheimer,
Based on the foregoing, the motion for summary judgment is denied.
Jonathan E. Silbert, Judge
Coburn v. Lenox Homes, Inc. , 186 Conn. 370 ( 1982 )
Ferndale Dairy, Inc. v. Geiger , 167 Conn. 533 ( 1975 )
Peterson v. Town of Oxford , 189 Conn. 740 ( 1983 )
Telesco v. Telesco , 187 Conn. 715 ( 1982 )
Dowling v. Kielak , 160 Conn. 14 ( 1970 )
Hearl v. WATERBURY YMCA , 187 Conn. 1 ( 1982 )
Merhi v. Becker , 164 Conn. 516 ( 1973 )
Michaud v. Gurney , 168 Conn. 431 ( 1975 )
Kowal v. Hofher , 181 Conn. 355 ( 1980 )
Rusco Industries, Inc. v. Hartford Housing Authority , 168 Conn. 1 ( 1975 )
Yanow v. Teal Industries, Inc. , 178 Conn. 262 ( 1979 )
Farrell v. Farrell , 182 Conn. 34 ( 1980 )
Kasowitz v. Mutual Construction Co. , 154 Conn. 607 ( 1967 )
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 106 S. Ct. 2505 ( 1986 )
Dorazio v. M. B. Foster Electric Co. , 157 Conn. 226 ( 1968 )