Connecticut Appeals

Advance Release Opinions - Review and Analysis

Home » Page 5

Advance Release Opinions – March 29

by

Review of the Connecticut Appellate Court’s advance release opinion about employment, which also touches on procedure.

Employment/Procedure

Sempey v. Stamford Hospital – CHRO gave Sempey a right to sue Hospital for discrimination within 90 days. Sempey timely started a three-count lawsuit, but none of the none of the counts was expressly for discrimination. Trial court granted Hospital’s motion to strike all three counts. Sempey repleaded a three-count complaint, but this time one of the counts was for discrimination.  Hospital filed a motion to strike all three counts, and a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction directed at only the discrimination count. Before Sempey’s time to file another substitute complaint had expired, trial court dismissed not only the discrimination count, but the other two counts as well. Appellate Court affirmed as to the discrimination count, finding that (1) since the motion to dismiss was subject matter jurisdictional, trial court was correct to decide it before Sempey’s time to substitute complaint expired; (2) Sempey had asserted her discrimination claim outside the 90 day window of her right-to-sue letter, and made no claim that a tolling doctrine applied; and (3) relation back doctrine did not apply since Sempey’s original complaint did not put Hospital on notice of a discrimination claim. But, Appellate Court reversed as to the other two counts because (1) Hospital directed its motion to dismiss solely at the discrimination count; and (2) Hospital did not show, and trial court did not find, that repleading could not cure any deficiencies in the two counts.

Advance Release Opinions – March 26

by

Review of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s advance release opinion about election law.

Election Law

Keeley v. Ayala – Nobody should have needed the Connecticut Supreme Court to confirm that the impropriety of the absentee-ballot shenanigans that occurred in this primary election for two seats on the Bridgeport City Council. The shenanigans included: (1) the candidate (the one that ended up with the most votes) instructed a police officer to go to certain locations to pick up absentee ballots; (2) the officer didn’t confirm the identities of the people giving him the ballots; (3) the officer, more than once, accepted multiple ballots from a single person; and (4) absentee ballots that the officer didn’t pick up and that weren’t postmarked were nonetheless counted in the result. Trial court invalidated the election and directed that a new primary be conducted. Supreme Court affirmed.

Advance Release Opinions – March 23

by

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court’s advance release opinions about administrative law, civil procedure, contracts, deed restriction, governmental immunity, visitation, and worker’s compensation. I do not review the Court’s advance release opinions about criminal law and habeas corpus. I also do not review the Court’s per curiam decision affirming summary judgment for defendant in a spoliation of evidence and CUTPA case because there isn’t anything in the opinion to review (if you want to see for yourself, the case is Traylor v. Gambrell).

Administrative Law

Metropolitan District v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities – District is a municipal entity the legislature created in 1929 for water supply, waste management and regional planning. Commission is a state agency charged with enforcing statutes barring discrimination. District sought a declaratory judgment, injunction and writ of mandamus on allegations that Commission engaged in improper rulemaking and violated District’s due process rights regarding District’s alleged discriminatory hiring practices at issue in five proceedings before Commission. Trial court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that District could not yet pursue declaratory relief in Superior Court because it had to first seek that relief before Commission under CGS § 4-176, and it could not yet seek that relief before Commission because three of the five discriminatory hiring claims were still pending before Commission. Appellate Court also confirmed that the exhaustion requirement applied even when challenging Commission’s jurisdiction; the exception for futility or inadequacy of administrative remedy did not apply since there was no showing of futility or inadequacy; and the exception for due process claims under 42 USC 1983 did not apply because lack of an adequate legal remedy remains a condition to injunctive relief even when claim is made under that statute.

Civil Procedure

Ryan v. Cassella – Plaintiff brought collection action against “Paul Cascella dba CIA Integrated Marketing Systems” and trial court entered a judgment for plaintiff on defendant’s failure to appear. In attempting to examine the judgment debtor, plaintiff learned that, though the marshal had served defendant at the correct address, defendant’s name was actually Cassella, with a second “s” instead of a second “c”, and that his company’s name was actually Integrated Marketing Systems, Inc., with an “Inc.” and without “CIA.” Trial court granted plaintiff’s motion to correct the names. After the trial court’s articulations, Appellate Court affirmed, finding that (1) judgment was against Cassella individually, not against his company, so that correcting the company name did not add a new party; (2) CGS § 52-123 gave the trial court the authority to correct the misspellings because correcting names did not substitute a new party and neither party was prejudiced; (3) the four month limit for opening judgments did not preclude the trial court from correcting the misspellings; (4) trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to open and vacate the trial court’s decision on the motion to correct.

Contracts

Micek-Holt v. Papageorge – Lease-to-buy contract blew up for landlord-seller when tenant-buyer failed to close – in 2011 – but remained in the property without paying anything. Trial court ordering a closing on certain terms, and failing that, judgment to enter for plaintiff extinguishing defendant’s property interest, quieting title in plaintiff, and requiring defendant to pay $150/day use and occupancy. Appellate Court affirmed in a per curiam decision essentially adopting the trial court’s reasoning.

Deed Restriction

Bueno v. Firgeleski – A 1941 deed included a restrictive covenant limiting construction on the property to one house, within specified setbacks, and only if approved by grantor or his successors. Plaintiffs acquired the land in 2008, intending to subdivide into two lots – one for their own home and one for development. The deed into plaintiffs contains the restriction. Trial court declared the restrictions unenforceable because (1) its purpose had been frustrated by a permanent and substantial change in circumstances; (2) it had been abandoned by lack of enforcement; and (3) it benefits no land. Appellate Court affirmed, rejecting defendants’ claims that (1) the evidence did not support certain of the trial court’s factual findings; and (2) the trial court improperly went beyond the four corners of the deeds in interpreting them and misapplied the substantial change of circumstances test.

Governmental Immunity

McCarroll v. East Haven – Child fell from the ladder of a playscape at kindergarten allegedly because of a missing or loose bolt securing one of the rungs. Trial court granted defendant summary judgment, finding that the identifiable victim-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity did not apply because although the child was in identifiable class of victims, the harm was not imminent absent evidence that the missing or loose bolt was apparent to East Haven. Appellate Court affirmed, noting that “[w]hether the bolt was missing or loose, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the probability of the child being injured was so high that the defendant had a clear and unequivocal duty to act to prevent harm.”

Visitation

Nassra v. Nassra – Supervised-visitation provider started collection action in small claims court to recover unpaid fees. Small claims court found that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the action. Service provider then filed an appearance in the dissolution action and moved for an order of payment, which the trial court granted. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that (1) service provider had standing because service provider had an oral contract with defendant and was injured when defendant did not pay; (2) six-year statute of limitations applied to the oral contract because the three-year statute applies only to executory oral contracts (neither party has fully performed and this oral contract was executed (service provider fully performed); and (3) trial court acted within its discretion in ordering defendant to pay service provider.

Worker’s Compensation

Binkowski v. Board of Education – Students assaulted Teacher and injured her. Teacher sued Board, alleging that Board acted “willfully and maliciously,” and intentionally inflicted emotional distress, by instituting a policy that led to the assault because it denied assistance to teachers confronted by violent and disruptive students. Trial court struck the complaint because it did not allege conduct to bring the action within an exception to worker’s compensation exclusivity. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that the complaint failed to allege conduct to bring her claim into the intentional tort exception under either the actual intent standard or the substantial certainty standard.

Advance Release Opinions – March 16

by

The Appellate Court advance released opinions about a probate appeal and worker’s compensation, which I review below.  The court also released two criminal law opinions, which I do not review.

Probate

Bassford v. Bassford – Nothing to see here. Plaintiff lost his probate court claims that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity, was unduly influenced, could not revoke his trust, and lacked capacity to accept a deed. Plaintiff appealed to Superior Court, which found for defendants on all issues. Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed by adopting Superior Court’s decision.

Worker’s Compensation

Melendez v. Fresh Start General Remodeling and Contracting, LLC – Claimant, who had been paid for various jobs at the individual respondent’s home over 11 weeks, was hurt in a car accident on his way to the home. Claimant brought claims against the business and the individual respondent. Appellate Court affirmed the commission’s benefit award, concluding that the commissioner properly determined that claimant was the individual respondent’s employee and did not deny the individual respondent due process in holding him personally liable.

Advance Release Opinions – March 9

by

The Connecticut Supreme Court advance released an opinion about redistributing an asset of the marital estate after a divorce judgment, which I review below.

Divorce

Reinke v. Sing – CGS § 46b-86(a) precludes a trial court from modifying an estate distribution unless one of the exceptions in CGS § 52-212a, or some other exception, applies. Here, the parties both consented to modifying the judgment to redistribute the husband’s pension entirely to the husband. Since that is one of the § 52-212a exceptions, the trial court had the authority to open and modify. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court confirmed that § 46b-86(a) is not subject matter jurisdictional, but rather a restriction on the court’s authority to act. Since it is not subject matter jurisdictional, the fact that § 46b-86(a) does not authorize the court to redistribute the estate does not prevent the court from doing if some other statute authorizes it.

Advance Release Opinions – March 9

by

The Connecticut Appellate Court advance released opinions about family law and judicial disqualification, which I review below. The Appellate Court also advance released opinions about two criminal and one habeas corpus matter, which I do not review.

Family Law

Zilkha v. Zilkha – In this child custody and visitation matter, the Appellate Court rejected defendant’s claims that the trial court (i) improperly delegated it judicial function and failed to consider public policy and the children’s best interests in giving the children considerable control over defendant’s access to them; (ii) improperly denied defendant’s motions to modify custody and visitation by relying on events that happened between 2004 and 2007, which he claimed trial court had earlier indicated were too remote and insufficiently weighty; (iii) improperly adopted recommendations of the children’s guardian ad litem, whom he claimed acted as an attorney for the children instead of a guardian ad litem; and (iv) improperly based its decision on what he claimed was an erroneous factual finding that the reconciliation therapist had ended reconciliation therapy.

Judicial Disqualification

Carvalhos Masonry, LLC v. S and L Variety Contractors, LLC – After trying the case, but before rendering a decision, the trial court suggested that the parties stipulate to a judgment for a specific amount. Plaintiff accepted the trial court’s suggestion; defendant rejected it. Three weeks later, the trial court issued a memorandum of decision finding for plaintiff in the exact amount of its settlement suggestion. Appellate Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court should have disqualified itself from deciding liability and damages after its failed attempt to convince the parties to stipulate to a judgment because of the concern that rejecting the court’s suggestion may result in retributive sanction or judicial displeasure.

 

Advance Release Opinions – January and February

by

As mentioned in my last post, I got behind with the advance released opinions in the latter half of January and all of February. This post catches me up on the Connecticut Appellate Court advance released opinions. I didn’t review the criminal or habeas decisions, one termination of parental rights decision, and one special immigrant juvenile status case.

Appellate Court

Accidental Failure of Suit

Megos v. Ranta – Officially released February 6. For accidental failure of suit purposes, plaintiff “commenced” the prior action against a non-resident driver when plaintiff served process on the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles under CGS § 52-62.

Administrative Appeal

Fagan v. Stamford – Officially released January 30. The Policemen’s Pension Trust Fund Board properly denied plaintiff’s request for an enhanced disability pension pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between the city and the police association.

Arbitration

Toland v. Toland – Officially released February 27. Parties submitted their divorce action to arbitration. Appellate Court rejected plaintiff’s claim that arbitrator’s alimony award and property division were legal conclusions warranting a searching scope of review and confirmed the arbitrator’s findings under the limited scope of review for an arbitrator’s factual determinations. Appellate Court also rejected plaintiff’s claims that arbitrator was evidently partial; manifestly disregarded the law; and abused his discretion in awarding defendant attorney’s fees.

Choice of Law

Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Searl – Officially released February 6. Under the agreement containing the arbitration clause, Connecticut law governs the terms of the agreement, but federal law governs the procedures used to enforce the arbitration clause.

Civil Procedure

General Linen Service Company, Inc. v. Cedar Park Inn and Whirlpool Suites – Officially released February 6. Unless a statute mandates joinder of a particular party, failure to join that party does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction.

ASPIC, LLC v. Poitier – Officially released February 13. Trial court granted plaintiff’s application for a prejudgment remedy where defendant had asserted a breach of fiduciary duty defense. Appellate Court reversed, concluding that since there was no dispute that plaintiff owed defendant a fiduciary duty, plaintiff had the burden of establishing probable cause to believe not only that plaintiff would be successful on its underlying claims but that plaintiff engaged in fair dealing as to the matters on which its claims are based.

Alaimo v. Alaimo – Officially released February 20. Appellate Court affirmed judgment for defendant in this breach of contract action because plaintiff’s claims on appeal exceeded the scope of his complaint and, even if they didn’t, plaintiff failed to present an adequate record for appellate review.

Brady v. Bickford – Officially released February 27. Because defendant’s statements were absolutely privileged, trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s defamation claim. For the same reason, there were no statements within the limitations period for plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim that could serve as the basis for a continuing course of conduct to obviate the time-bar. Reversed and remanded with instruction to render a dismissal.

ARC Capital, LLC v. Asia Pacific Limited – Officially released March 6. Trial court dismissed this action to enforce a foreign judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that it could be enforced, if at all, only through Chapter 15 of the federal Bankruptcy Act. Appellate Court reversed, concluding that “the present action does not fall within any of the limited situations … in which chapter 15 would apply.”

Damages for Breach of Contract

United Amusements and Vending Company v. Sabia – Officially released February 6. Trial court incorrectly calculated damages.

Dental Malpractice

Doyle v. Aspen Dental of Southern CT, PC – Officially released January 30. Appellate Court affirmed dismissal of dental malpractice action because the opinion letter plaintiff attached to the complaint was from a general dentist, not an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, like defendant. It did not matter that there was no authentic public record showing that defendant had training as an oral and maxillofacial surgeon.

Family Law

Kimberly C v. Anthony C – Officially released February 27. Prior proceeding relating to plaintiff’s application for a restraining order did not collaterally estop defendant in dissolution proceeding because court could not say relevant issue was necessarily determined in prior proceeding.

Dinunzio v. Dinunzio – Officially released March 6. Reversed and remanded for a new trial because trial court should have treated defendant’s pension, which he had already started receiving when plaintiff commenced the action, as both a source of income and as property subject to equitable distribution.

Foreclosure

US Bank National Association v. Christophersen – Officially released January 30. The only significant thing here is that CGS § 49-15 does not preclude the trial court from converting a judgment of strict foreclosure rendered before a bankruptcy to a foreclosure by sale after discharge.

Stratek Plastics, Limited v. Ibar – Officially released February 20. Appellate Court affirmed trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff in this action to foreclose a judgment lien. In rejecting defendant’s claims, Appellate Court concluded that the trial court had conducted a hearing on attorney’s fees as required by CGS § 52-249; and defendant waived any right to require plaintiff to present a statement of fees requested and description of services rendered.

Cliff’s Auto Body, Inc. v. Grenier – Officially released February 27. Trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to foreclose a judgment lien because the judgment on which the lien was based was not a final judgment.

Land Use

Lane v. Cashman – Officially released January 30. Property owners failed to exhaust administrative remedies regarding their claim of permitted nonconforming use by failing to appeal the order to discontinue the zoning board of appeals.

Personal Guaranty

Valley National Bank v. Private Transerve, LLC – Officially released January 30. Per curiam decision rejecting guarantor’s claims that plaintiff lacked standing to prosecute underlying foreclosures, trial court improperly granted plaintiff permission to amend complaint, and trial court made improper evidentiary rulings at hearing in damages.

Personal Injury

Rutter v. Janis – Officially released March 6. Under CGS § 14-60, car dealer can loan a license plate to an insured car buyer for thirty days without incurring financial responsibility for any car accident. The thirty day period begins the day after the day the loan is actually made. Said another way, the day loan is made is not included in calculating the thirty-day period. Calculated this way, accident occurred within thirty days of loan. Since dealer complied with all other statutory requirements, trial court properly granted dealer’s summary judgment motion.

Right to Privacy

Davidson v. Bridgeport – Officially released March 6. Police department did not violate officer’s right to privacy by ordering him to submit to a psychiatric exam because the exam was reasonable to department’s evaluation of officer’s fitness for duty and a reasonable person would not have been offended by submitting to the exam. As to officer’s emotional distress claims, requiring him to have the exam did not create an unreasonable risk of emotional distress that resulted in illness or bodily harm.

Worker’s Compensation

Frantzen v. Davenport Electric – Officially released February 27. Commission has subject matter jurisdiction to resolve disputes about attorney’s fees between attorneys who serially represented the same claimant and there is no right to a jury trial for such claims.

 

 

Advance Release Opinions – January and February

by

I fell behind in reviewing decisions because I was tied up writing briefs during the back half of January and most of February. This post catches me up on the Connecticut Supreme Court’s advance release opinions. I will catch up on the Appellate Court’s advance release opinions in a separate post.

Supreme Court

Officially Released January 17 – Constitutionality of Education System

Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell – Voluntary membership organization, schoolchildren, and their parents sought a declaratory judgment that defendants failed to provide suitable and substantially equal educational opportunities in violation of the Connecticut constitution. Supreme Court confirmed that (i) the individual plaintiffs had standing because the complaint raised a colorable claim that their specific, personal, and legal interest was being specially and injuriously affected by the defendants’ acts or omissions; (ii) voluntary membership organization had associational standing; (iii) trial court applied an incorrect constitutional standard in concluding state’s educational system was unconstitutional; (iv) defendants did not fail to provide plaintiffs with a minimally adequate educational opportunity based on an alleged inadequate level of teaching; and (v) plaintiffs failed to establish that the disparities between the funding of the neediest and least needy school districts was unconstitutional. Three justices concurred and dissented in a single opinion.

Officially Released January 18 – Worker’s Comp Exception for Subjective Belief of Certain Injury; Identifiable Persons Exception to Govt Immunity

Lucenti v. Laviero – In this worker’s compensation case, summary judgment for employer was proper because worker failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact about the applicability of the exception to the worker’s compensation act for the employer’s subjective belief of a substantial certainty of injury. The official syllabus indicates that the evidence “fell short of demonstrating that [the employer] subjectively believed that an injury was substantially certain to result, as there was no evidence of prior accidents involving the excavator, a protracted history of workplace safety violations, or any deception on the part of the [employer] with respect to any dangers presented by the excavator.” There was one concurrence, and a first and second dissent.

Martinez v. New Haven – Supreme Court reversed trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff proved the imminent harm to identifiable persons exception to the defense of governmental immunity with respect to injuries that he sustained when other students ran with safety scissors in his school’s auditorium. One justice dissented.

Officially Released January 26 – Attorney’s Fees for Consumer for Commercial Party’s Withdrawal of Action

Connecticut Housing Finance Authority v. Alfaro – The Supreme Court stated the issue as follows: “[W]hether, pursuant to General Statutes § 42-150bb, a defendant may be awarded attorney’s fees when the plaintiff withdraws an action as a matter of right pursuant to General Statutes § 52-80.” Under § 42-150bb, if a consumer contract gives the commercial party the right to recover attorney’s fees from the consumer, the consumer has the right to recover his or her attorney’s fees from the commercial party. Under § 52-80, a plaintiff may withdraw an action without court approval if no hearing on the merits has commenced, or with court approval if a hearing has commenced. With two justices dissenting, the Supreme Court concluded:

“[T]he trial court is permitted to make findings regarding the reasons for the plaintiff’s withdrawal of an action. The findings need not be made after a full evidentiary hearing. Instead, once a
defendant moves for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to § 42-150bb after a termination of proceedings that in some way favors the defendant, there exists a rebuttable presumption that the defendant is entitled to such fees unless the plaintiff can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the withdrawal occurred because of some reason other than the actions taken by the defendant’s counsel. The plaintiff can show its reasons for withdrawing the action through affidavits, and it is for the trial court to determine whether an award of attorney’s fees is proper in light of the totality of the circumstances. The trial court, after reviewing the affidavits, may wish to conduct a hearing to resolve any questions created; however, the trial court is not required to do so.”

Officially Released January 30 – Nonsuit as Sanction for Failing to Comply with Order to File Confidential Settlement Agreement

Ridgaway v. Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company – Ridgaway settled a dram shop case against a nightclub and several of its liability insurers. As part of that settlement, he took an assignment of  the nightclub’s rights against Mt. Vernon, who was a non-settling insurer in the dram shop case. In Ridgaway’s subsequent action against Mt. Vernon, the trial court resolved a discovery dispute by ordering Ridgaway to file the settlement agreement from the dram shop action, which was confidential. When Ridgawway did not file it, the trial court nonsuited him. The Appellate Court reversed, finding that the sanction of nonsuit was disproportionate to the misconduct. The Supreme Court found that the trial court improperly based its nonsuit on facts that were not in the record and remanded for determination of an appropriate sanction based on the record – which still could include a nonsuit.

Officially Released January 31 – Independent Contractor vs. Employee for Compensation Fund Purposes

Kirby of Norwich v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation – Strange as it may seem in 2018, Kirby is a company that sold vacuum cleaners door-to-door. It claimed it was exempt from contributing to the unemployment compensation fund because, in its view, its sales people were independent contractors, not employees. The administrator rejected that idea. So did the trial court. And so did the Supreme Court.

Officially Released February 2 – Calculation of State Employee Retirement Benefits

Bouchard v. State Employees Retirement Commission – For this one, I’m going to give the question and answer as framed by the Supreme Court:

Question: “[W]hether all state employees, irrespective of when they retired, are entitled to have their benefits recalculated in accordance with Longley.”

Answer: “[P]laintiffs’ claims for recalculation of benefits were time barred, and for the reasons supporting that conclusion neither they nor the class is entitled to relief.”

Officially Released February 27 – Saving Untimely Action by Timely Delivering Process to Marshal

Doe v. West Hartford – Marshal’s return indicated service after statute of limitations expired. Return did not recite date process was delivered to marshal as contemplated by CGS § 52-593a(b). Plaintiff opposed summary judgment with evidence that process was delivered to the marshal for service before the limitations period expired. Trial court granted summary judgment, finding plaintiff’s evidence was not admissible to create a genuine issue of fact about whether he had timely delivered process to the marshal to invoke the 30-day savings provision of CGS § 52-593a(a). The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the record contained sufficient evidence to create a fact issue about the application of the savings provision, and rejecting defendants’ claim that the marshal’s failure to recite the date he received process was fatal to the savings provision.

Officially Released March 6 – Personal Jurisdiction over State Employees sued Individually; Identifiable Person/Imminent Harm and Govt Immunity

Harnage v. Lightner – Supreme Court confirmed that former inmate’s action against state employees for violation of his constitutional rights was properly dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff conceded that he sued defendants only in their individual capacities, which rendered ineffectual his attempt to serve them by leaving process with the Attorney General.

Brooks v. Powers –  Police did not dispatch anyone in response to a call that a woman was standing in a field during a severe thunderstorm and possibly needed medical attention. The next morning, a fisherman found the woman, drowned, in a body of water a half-mile away from the field. The Supreme Court directed that judgment enter for defendants because death by drowning a half-mile away the next day was an unforeseeable result of standing in a field during a thunderstorm, and the connection between those events was too attenuated to abrogate governmental immunity under the “imminent harm” exception. One justice dissented.

Advance Release Opinions – January 19

by

The Connecticut Appellate Court advance released an opinion about breach of contract that I review below. The Court also released opinions about criminal law and habeas corpus that I do not review. There were also nine memorandum decisions that I don’t review because there isn’t anything to review.

Breach of Contract

Finney v. Cameron’s Auto Towing Repair – Nothing particularly interesting in this one. Finney sued Cameron’s claiming Cameron’s breached a contract to fix his car. Cameron’s denied there was any agreement to fix Finney’s car and counterclaimed for towing and storage charges. Trial court granted Cameron’s summary judgment on Finney’s claim and Cameron’s counterclaim. The Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment as to Finney’s claim, but reversed as to Cameron’s counterclaim because Cameron’s summary judgment papers did not demonstrate entitlement to recovery.

Advance Release Opinions – January 11 – Part Two

by

The Connecticut Appellate Court advance released an opinion about personal injury law that I review below. The Court also released two opinions about criminal law that I do not review.

FYI, in prior posts, I said “which I review below.” I started to think it should be “that I review below.” Strunk and White seems to confirm it, so I changed it.

This is Part Two of the post for January 11 advance releases. Part One is the immediately preceding post that deals with a Supreme Court opinion released the same day.

Personal Injury

Pettiford v. State – State van hit UPS driver when he was crossing the street to deliver a package. UPS driver claimed that State owed him a heightened duty because he was in or very near an unmarked crosswalk. Trial court found, and Appellate Court agreed, that by statute an unmarked crosswalk exists only where a sidewalk meets an intersection. Since there was no sidewalk, there was no unmarked crosswalk. Appellate Court also found that, even if there was an unmarked crosswalk, the trial court made no finding that the UPS driver was in or very near it when he got hit and other findings suggested he wasn’t. Appellate Court reversed, but only because the trial court had dismissed the action when it should have entered judgment for State.