Opinion
CV156027629S
02-24-2016
James Voisine v. Ryan Benoit et al
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT #116
Andrew W. Roraback, J.
I
BACKGROUND
This case involves a three-car collision. The following undisputed facts are relevant for the purposes of deciding this motion. The plaintiff, James Voisine, was driving his car in a westerly direction on interstate 84 when he was hit from behind by a car operated by defendant Daniel Samela, and owned by defendant Robbin Briglia. The car operated by Samela had been hit from behind by a vehicle operated by defendant Ryan Benoit (" the rear car"), and it was that impact which propelled the car being operated by Samela (" the middle car") into the car being operated by the plaintiff (" the front car").
The operator and owner of the middle car, Samela and Briglia respectively, have moved for summary judgment claiming that there is no genuine issue of material fact that they cannot be found liable to the plaintiff and are, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In support of their motion, the movants have submitted an unauthenticated police report and an affidavit from Samela, in which he says he was struck from behind by Benoit's vehicle and at no time before he was hit did his car make contact with the vehicle in front of him.
In opposition to this motion, the plaintiff has submitted excerpts of the deposition testimony of Benoit in which he stated that he honestly did not remember whether the vehicle operated by Samela was stopped at the time of impact and that it was possible that Samela's vehicle was just slowing down when the collision occurred.
II
DISCUSSION
" Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and 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 . . . In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Vendrella v. Astriab Family Ltd. Partnership, 311 Conn. 301, 313, 87 A.3d 546 (2014). " A motion for summary judgment shall be supported by such documents as may be appropriate, including but not limited to affidavits, certified transcripts of testimony under oath, disclosures, written admissions and the like." Practice Book § 17-45.
" In seeking summary judgment, it is the movant who has the burden of showing the nonexistence of any issue of fact. The courts are in entire agreement that the moving party for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all the material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law. The courts hold the movant to a strict standard. To satisfy his burden 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 the light most favorable to the opponent . . . When documents submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment fail to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party has no obligation to submit documents establishing the existence of such an issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ramirez v. Health Net of the Northeast, Inc., 285 Conn. 1, 10-11, 938 A.2d 576 (2008).
" In the context of multi-car accidents, judges of the superior court have consistently granted summary judgment where it is undisputed that the middle vehicle was stopped at the time of the accident and the plaintiff fails to submit any evidence that the driver of the middle vehicle operated his car negligently." (Citations omitted.) Posner v. Jones, Superior Court, Judicial District of Middlesex, Docket No. CV-04-4000766-S, (August 3, 2005, Aurigemma, J.).
In this case, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the vehicle operated by Samela was moving or stopped when the collisions occurred. The allegations of negligence that the plaintiff has made against Samela include that " he followed the plaintiff's motor vehicle which was ahead of him, more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having regard for the speed of the plaintiff's vehicle, the traffic upon and the condition of the highway and weather conditions, in violation of Section 14-240 of the Connecticut General Statutes."
General Statutes § 14-240 provides in relevant part: " (a) No driver of a motor vehicle shall follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having regard for the speed of such vehicles, the traffic upon and the condition of the highway and weather conditions . . ."
Our courts have determined that " [i]ssues of negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication but should be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner . . . Summary judgment is particularly ill-adapted to negligence cases, where . . . the ultimate issue in contention involves a mixed question of fact and law, and requires the trier of fact to determine whether the standard of care was met in a specific situation." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Busque v. Oakwood Farms Sports Center, Inc., 80 Conn.App. 603, 607, 836 A.2d 463 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 919, 841 A.2d 1190 (2004).
Unlike the Rosner case, where the only evidence was that the middle driver was not moving, there is uncertainty in this case as to whether Samela was moving. The present case is more similar to Beach v. Williams, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV-11-6024343-S, (March 13, 2013, Wilson, J.), where there was a question as to whether the middle driver was stopped, and consequently, summary judgment was denied. There are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Samela was negligent in the operation of his vehicle in one or more of the ways alleged in the plaintiff's amended complaint. Therefore, the defendants' Samela and Briglia's motion for summary judgment is denied.