Summary
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants in a premises-liability action arising from the plaintiff's fall on a driveway. The court held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact that the defendant owner possessed or controlled the premises, which had been occupied and controlled by a tenant. The court also noted that the estate of the deceased co-owner was not a legal entity capable of being sued, and that ruling was not challenged on appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants possessed or controlled the premises at the time of the alleged injury.
- Whether summary judgment was proper where the plaintiff failed to plead possession and control and failed to submit evidentiary facts contradicting the defendants' proof that possession and control had been relinquished to a tenant.
Holdings
- The plaintiff failed to present sufficient underlying factual evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that Ayers possessed or controlled the premises when the injury occurred.
- Summary judgment was properly rendered for the defendants because the record showed no genuine issue of material fact and, absent possession and control, the defendants owed no duty to the plaintiff.
Key quotations
“Practice Book § [17-49] mandates that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith 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.” (56 Conn. App. at 334)
“Mere statements of legal conclusions or that an issue of fact does exist are not sufficient to raise the issue.” (56 Conn. App. at 335)
“Liability for a claimed injury due to a defective premises depends on possession and control and not on title.” (56 Conn. App. at 335)
Factual background
Kimberly Fernandez claimed that she was injured on July 29, 1996, when she fell while walking on a driveway at 64 Ayers Drive in Canterbury. Lora Ayers owned the property, but Shirley Baker had occupied and controlled it for several years under an oral agreement with Ayers. Fernandez did not plead or submit a counteraffidavit establishing that Ayers retained possession or control, relying instead on a homeowner's insurance policy and her deposition statement that she had seen Ayers on the property at some unidentified time.
Procedural history
Kimberly Fernandez alleged that she was injured in a fall on a driveway at property owned by Lora Ayers and sued Ayers and the Estate of Fred Ayers. The trial court dismissed the action against the estate for lack of jurisdiction because the estate was not a legal entity capable of being sued and granted summary judgment for the remaining defendants, concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed concerning possession and control of the premises. The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed.