Opinion
No. CV05-5000448S
December 27, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
ISSUE
Whether the court should grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to all counts of the plaintiff's amended complaint? The court holds the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be denied.
FACTS
This claim dates back to an incident on October 19, 2004, when the plaintiff, Velma Jones-Szoldra, allegedly became caught on a metal object that was protruding from the bottom of the bagging counter in a supermarket owned by the defendant, Terryville IGA, LLC, and subsequently fell to the floor, sustaining various injuries, especially to her left shoulder. The original complaint was filed on November 4, 2005, but later was amended on February 22, 2007. The defendant filed an answer and asserted special defenses to the plaintiff's amended complaint on February 28, 2007. The defendant amended its answer and special defenses on May 22, 2007.
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment as to all counts in the plaintiff's amended complaint on September 4, 2007. In support of the motion, the defendant contends that summary judgment should be granted because the allegations in the amended complaint alleges a different cause of action than the original complaint's cause of action, and thus, the statute of limitations has expired on the claim. The plaintiff opposed the motion for summary judgment and submitted its opposition and memorandum in opposition on November 18, 2007. The plaintiff contends that the premise of the cause of action in the amended complaint is the same as the premise of the cause of action in the original complaint and therefore, the statute of limitations has not expired. The only changes made to the original complaint was a clearer, more accurate description of the piece of metal at issue.
DISCUSSION
"The law governing summary judgment and the accompanying standard of review are well settled. Practice Book § [17-49] requires that judgment should 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. A material fact is a fact that will make a difference in the result of the case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gold v. East Haddam, 103 Conn.App. 369, 372 (2007). "To satisfy his burden [of showing the nonexistence of any issue of fact] the movant must make a showing that it is quite clear what the truth is, and that excludes any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact . . . As the burden of proof is on the movant, the evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to the opponent." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 373. "In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court is not to decide issues of fact; its function is to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact." Id.
The defendant moves for summary judgment as to all counts in the plaintiff's amended complaint because the amended complaint contains allegations that give rise to a new, different cause of action than the cause of action in the original complaint. Specifically, the defendant is arguing that the plaintiff's modification of the description of the metal obstruction which caught the plaintiff's shoe, eliminating all references to a "metal/rebar" which is the metal obstruction at issue, changed the cause of action of the original complaint to the extent that the amended complaint now has a separate cause of action. The plaintiff opposes the motion for summary judgment because the amended complaint alleges the same cause of action as the original complaint, and the more accurate description of the metal obstruction does not change the original cause of action. The plaintiff contends that the amended complaint relates back to the original complaint as both complaints are still alleging that the defendant was negligent in failing to keep its premises safe for its customers.
Generally speaking, "a negligence claim . . . is ill suited to summary adjudication" unless an exception applies, such as governmental or parental immunity. Massad v. Eastern Connecticut Cable Television, Inc., 70 Conn.App. 635, 637, 801 A.2d 813, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 926, 806 A.2d 1060 (2002). "[I]ssues of negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication but should be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Henriques v. Magnavice, 59 Conn.App. 333, 335-36 n. 2, 757 A.2d 627 (2000). "In an amended complaint, [i]t is proper to amplify or expand what has already been alleged in support of a cause of action, provided the identity of the cause of action remains substantially the same, but where an entirely new and different factual situation is presented, a new and different cause of action is started." Bosco v. Regan, 102 Conn.App. 686, 692, 927 A.2d 325, cert. denied, 284 Conn. 914, 931 A.2d 931 (2007). "A cause of action is that single group of facts which is claimed to have brought about an unlawful injury to the plaintiff and which entitles the plaintiff to relief." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. "Amendments relate back to the date of the original complaint unless they allege a new cause of action . . . Our relation back doctrine provides that an amendment relates back when the original complaint has given the party fair notice that a claim is being asserted stemming from a particular transaction or occurrence, thereby serving the objectives of our statute of limitations, namely, to protect parties from having to defend against stale claims . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 693. "A change in, or an addition to, a ground of negligence or an act of negligence arising out of the single group of facts which was originally claimed to have brought about the unlawful injury to the plaintiff does not change the cause of action." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Miller v. Fishman, 102 Conn.App. 286, 299, 925 A.2d 441 (2007).
With the only alteration to the original complaint being one that clarified the original allegations in support of the cause of action, it is clear that the cause of action in the amended complaint is substantially similar to the cause of action in the original complaint. The counts of the amended complaint stem from the same factual circumstances as the counts of the original complaint, i.e. the defendant's failure to keep its premises in a safe, reasonable condition for its customers. Changing the description of the metal obstruction at issue in a negligence suit does not change the cause of action. Furthermore, the general rule, as mentioned previously, does not favor summary judgment for negligence claims.
The court therefore denies the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to all counts of the plaintiff's amended complaint.